Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the defendants. It is against judgment and decree dated 11.4.1974 passed by the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Begusarai in Title Suit. 63 of 1968/4 of 1974 by which he has declared the title of the plaintiff to the extent of 8 bighas, 6 kathas and 4 dhurs in the lands described in the Schedule of the plaint. 2. I may first notice the facts which has been admitted before me as beyond controversy between the contesting patties. One Jawahar had two sons, namely Hiro and Mochan. Hiro died leaving behind him one married daughter, namely Khakri who was impleaded as defendant No. 7 in the suit. But subsequently because of her death during the pendency of the suit her heirs have been brought on record. The Hindu undivided family comprising of Hiro and Mochan owned and possessed some immoveable properties. The plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1968 (Ext. 1) purchased lands measuring 8 bighas, 6 kathas and 4 dhurs being part and parcel of 27 different plots lying under different khatas and touzis from Khakri out of her alleged 50% share in the properties of the aforesaid joint family. It is on the basis of this document that the present suit for partition has been filed for carving out his share in metes and bounds to the above extent. 3. The trial court on a perusal of the documentary and oral evidence has accepted the case of the plaintiff that there was severance of joint status between Hiro and Mochan on the date of execution of gift deed dated 27.8.1937 (Ext.2) and, therefore, Khakri-the vendor of the plaintiff, as a 50% owner of the suit property had a valid title and interest making her competent to effect the sale in favour of the plaintiff as evidenced by the sale deed (Ext.1). 4. Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and decree both on facts as also in law. His submission is that the trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion of severance of the joint status of the family by primarily relying on the gift deed (Ext.2) the purport whereof could not have been extended beyond what it explicitly contains. His submission is that the trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion of severance of the joint status of the family by primarily relying on the gift deed (Ext.2) the purport whereof could not have been extended beyond what it explicitly contains. According to him, the narration in the gift deed merely extends to declaring that Mochan, because his love and affection towards his only married daughter Khakri, had intended to gift his share in a specified plot of land so as to secure to her a place of residence since she was earlier allowed to construct a house thereon and live with her family in that house. He has raised serious grievance against the approach of the trial court in considering the import of the sale deeds (Ext. D series) dated 2.5.1935 (Ext. D3), 3.8.1979 (Ext. D), 14.8.1979 (Ext. Dl) and 12.5.1986 (Ext. D2) which are jointly executed by Hiro and Mochan much after the execution of the aforesaid gift deed. These sale deeds, according to him, even on a plain reading shows that till the date of execution of these deeds, the two brothers constituted a joint family. He has invited my attention to the sudvarna bond Ext A series and the rent receipts Ext. E series to show that the description of the lands mentioned in these documents and the measurements given therein are quite consistent with the case of the defendant-appellants. According to him, the reasonings given by the trial court in these respects are based on errors apparent on the fact of the record. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents by placing reliance on the gift deed (Ext.2) has submitted that keeping in view the narration in the gift deed, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion (hat Mochan by an unequivocal declaration of his intention, had severed the status of jointness with his brother Hiro, in 1937 and since then firstly the said two brothers and subsequently their heirs including Khakri are jointly possessing the said separated properties just for the sake of convenient cultivation. 6. I will proceed to examine the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the trial court on the issue of severance of joint status of the family, on basis of the said basic facts. 6. I will proceed to examine the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the trial court on the issue of severance of joint status of the family, on basis of the said basic facts. The learned Counsels for the parties, on the basis of the evidence on record have fairly admitted that out of the two brothers Hiro had died prior to 1954 and Mochan had died sometime in 1954. 7. The trial court has primarily based its findings regarding severance of jointness on an interpretation of the gift deed dated 27.8.1937 (Ext. 2) which was executed by Mochan in favour of his daughter Khakri. Therefore, I would like to deal with this document first. The purpose for which this gift was made, as detailed in the gift deed itself, has been noticed by me above. The inference of jointness or otherwise of the family has been sought to be drawn from the details of the property as set in the said gift deed which is as follows: Details of property.-Four kathas of Kaymi Joat land, out of 8 Kathas, after deducting the half share of Hiro Barai, own brother of the executant, situate at Mauza Raghunandanpur Dhabouli Pargana Balia. Thana, Sub Division and Sub Registry Begusarai, District-Munger bearing Touzi No. 730, Thana No. 336 in the Zamindari of Babu Khublal Singh, at an annual Jama of Rs. 14 ana and 6 pai including case to the extent half share in the gifted property. The details set out above on a plain reading merely shows that the donor had intended to make a gift of 4 Kathas of land to the extent of his share by carving out the land of the given description of that measurement since the donee was already in occupation thereof. Merely on the basis of this document that can at best be inferred is that the donor Mochan, as Karta of the family, had effected the partition of one of the several plots held by the joint family, keeping in view a specific purpose. This document, in my opinion, cannot be taken as declaration of intention by Mochan to effect any separation or partition in the family by untieing the jointness. Therefore, this document in isolation cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence of the fact of separation in the family. This document, in my opinion, cannot be taken as declaration of intention by Mochan to effect any separation or partition in the family by untieing the jointness. Therefore, this document in isolation cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence of the fact of separation in the family. 8 The next important documents to be examined are the Sale Deeds dated 3.8.1939 (Ext. D) dated 14.8.1939 (Ext. D1), dated 12.5.1936 (Ext. D2), and dated 2.5.1935 (Ext. D3). All these sale deeds were executed jointly by the two brothers Mochan and Hiro whereby they had sold certain lands of the family. The narration in the sale deeds shows that the sales were effected to meet the family needs. In the last such sale deed dated 3rd August, 1939 it has clearly been stated that the lands are being sold for redeeming the sudvarna bond dated 12.4.1923 under which the family had taken loan amounting to Rs. 1000.00 . It has specifically been stated in the said deed that by this sale, the entire joint family of the two brothers alongwith minors will be benefitted. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the two brothers were joint and had been constituting a joint Mitakshara family till 1939. Inview of this finding of mine, the very factual basis of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, that there was disruption in the joint family because of separation of the brothers in 1934 as also the finding of the court below that the separation had taken place on the date of execution of the gift deed (Ext. 2) are negatived. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the separation in the family had taken place at any subsequent date. 9. The fact of the jointness also stands fully corroborated if the rent receipts (Ext. E Series) and sudvarana bond (Ext. A series) are closely examined. According to the contesting defendants, who are appellants before this Court, after the death of Mochan, they had separated from each other and got their lands mutated as per understanding between them. In support of said fact, they have filed rent receipts in the Court, marked as Ext.E series. E Series) and sudvarana bond (Ext. A series) are closely examined. According to the contesting defendants, who are appellants before this Court, after the death of Mochan, they had separated from each other and got their lands mutated as per understanding between them. In support of said fact, they have filed rent receipts in the Court, marked as Ext.E series. From these rent receipts it is quite clear that various plots communicating the family property, either stands in the name of Biranchi or Jitan or jointly to the extent of 50% share of each as per mutual division and accordingly mutated. The sudvarna bond has also been properly explained in support of this fact. These lands have been dealt with by these brothers to the extent lot their shares and keeping in view the needs of their respective families. In my opinion, the trial court has misdirected itself in taking the view that from these documents it has to be inferred that the two brothers had dealt with the properties to a particular extent only because collectively they had only half share in the property. As a matter of fact no document either by way of rent receipts or any instrument has been filed either by the plaintiff, or his vendor to show that any lands have ever been mutated in the name of Khakri or they are possessed of any rent receipts in their favour or that they had ever dealt with these properties in any manner. 10. Some oral evidence has also been sought to be adduced in order to substantiate that the agricultural lands were jointly held and cultivated by Khakri and the contesting defendants. In my opinion, in view of the documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties, the oral evidence is not immaterial for arriving at a finding regarding partition between the aforesaid two brothers Hiro and Mochan. 11. For the reasons set out above I am of the considered view that the court below has wrongly decreed the suit by directing for carving out a Takhta in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of his purchase evidenced by the sale deed (Ext. 1) by impugned judgment which is, accordingly, set aside with costs throughout.