JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is plaintiff s first appeal under section 96, Civil Procedure Code against the dismissal of his suit for partition and separate possession. 2. It is no longer in dispute that deceased defendant No. 1 Mathura Prasad had six sons-plaintiff Ramgulam and defendants No. 2 to 6 Badri Prasad. Krishna Murari, Kanhaiyalal, Jagdish and Jainarain. There had been a partition in the year 1964 between the plaintiff and his three brothers defendants No. 2 to 4 in which 29 acres of land of village Khajuria was allotted to each of them. Since then the plaintiff was living separately. There were 126.70 acres of land of that village which continued to be the joint family property of the father and six sons. The details of these lands are given in Schedule 'A' to the plaint in which the plaintiff claimed 1/7th share. There were 57 acres of land held by Ramsewak who was brother of Mathura Prasad. This was the separate property of Ramsewak. He executed the Will dated 20-9-1967 (Ex. D-10A) in favour of his nephews defendants No. 5 and 6 Jagdish and Jai Narain. The dispute in the present case is mainly in respect of these 57 acres of land. The daughters of Ramsewak challenged the Will. Therefore, the defendants No. 5 and 6 filed civil suit No. 41-A of 1974 for declaration that they have become owners of these lands on the basis of the Will. There was a compromise in that civil suit. The daughters were paid an amount of Rs. 26,000/-. A compromise decree (Ex.-D-6) was passed on 13-12-1977 declaring Jagdish and Jai Narain as owners of these lands. Mathura Prasad had gifted three acres of land of Khasra No. 57 out of the joint family lands of 126.70 acres to his daughter Jamwati who has been impleaded as legal representative of deceased defendant No. 1 Mathura Prasad. 3. On 28-6-1984 Mathura Prasad effected a partition between his sons in which 17.65 acres of land of village Khajuria were allotted to the plaintiff and almost the same area was given to each of the defendants No. 2 to 6 and to the father. In this partition no share was given Awadhrani, mother of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 2 to 6 as she felt satisfied with the share which was given to her husband Mathura Prasad. 4. In this partition no share was given Awadhrani, mother of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 2 to 6 as she felt satisfied with the share which was given to her husband Mathura Prasad. 4. The plaintiffs case is that 57 acres of land received from Ram Sewak also became the joint family property as the amount of Rs. 26,000/- for compromising the civil suit was paid by Mathura Prasad out of the income of the lands belonging to the joint family. Apart from these lands there is a house in village Khajuria, a house in Ganj Bazar, Khurai, a new house at Khurai, and two garages in Khajuria and these properties detailed in Schedule II are also joint family properties. Then there are certain moveable properties two tractors theresher, Jeep, two machines for sowing and two trollies as detailed in Schedule III and these are also joint family properties. According to the plaintiff the properties mentioned in Schedule II and III have been acquired out of the funds generated from the income of joint family lands. The plaintiff has claimed 1/7th share in the properties mentioned in Schedule I to III. He has pleaded that the partition which is said to have been made by the father on 28-6-1984 is unjust and unfair as all the properties belonging to the joint family were not included in the partition and the lands of better qualities were retained by the father for himself. 5. In reply the defendant's case is that 57 acres of lands received by the defendants No. 5 and 6 by the bequest of Ram Sewak were their separate property and the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was paid out of the income of these lands only during a period of ten years from 1967 to 1977. In the mutation case before the Revenue Authorities the plaintiff had given in writing on 5-7-1971 that he has no concern with these lands. The houses and other properties given in Schedules II and III are the separate property of the defendants No. 5 and 6. The partition made by the father on 28-6-1984 is binding on the plaintiff as it was just and fair. The plaintiff has been given 17.65 acres of land in lieu of his share and the lands given to him are of good quality. The partition made by the father on 28-6-1984 is binding on the plaintiff as it was just and fair. The plaintiff has been given 17.65 acres of land in lieu of his share and the lands given to him are of good quality. The division of the lands was by draw of lots in order to ensure fairness. The father had a right to give three acres of land as a gift to his daughter. The partition having already been effected the suit for fresh partition is not maintainable. 6. The trial Court held that 123.70 acres of land of village Khajuria were the only joint family property and the plaintiff had 1/7th share therein. The partition made by father was just and equitable. The lands measuring 57 acres received from Ram Sewak became the separate property of the defendants No. 5 and 6 and the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was given by Mathura Prasad out of the income of these lands only which were with the defendants No. 5 and 6 for ten years. The other properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendants in which the plaintiff has no right. On these findings the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff has been given 17.65 acres of land allotted to him by his father by an order of the trial Court. 7. The points for determination in this appeal are as under:- (a) Whether Mathura Prasad paid the amount of Rs. 26,000/- to the daughters of Ram Sewak for compromising the civil suit out of the income of the joint family property or out of the income of the lands which were received as a bequest from Ram Sewak. (b) Whether these 57 acres of land became the joint family property. (c) Whether the other properties given in Schedule II and III are the joint family property. (d) Whether the partition effected by the father on 28-6-1984 is unjust and unfair. 8. Points (a) and (b) Ram Sewak made bequest of 57 acres of land belonging to him to his nephews defendants No. 5 and 6 Jagdish and Jainarain by the Will dated 20-9-1967 (Ex. P-10-A). This fact is not in dispute. Therefore, these lands became the separate property of the legatees. That was the stand of the plaintiff also when he submitted the application dated 5-7-1971 (Ex. P-10-A). This fact is not in dispute. Therefore, these lands became the separate property of the legatees. That was the stand of the plaintiff also when he submitted the application dated 5-7-1971 (Ex. D-1) before the Revenue Court stating therein that he has no concern with the dispute between the daughters of Ram Sewak and the defendants No. 5 and 6. Property received by Will from the uncles is separate property and not joint family property. (Mulla's Hindu Law - Article 223(5)-17th Edition page 329 and Arunachal Mudaliar vs. Murugantha AIR 1953 SC 495 ). 9. According to the plaintiff the lands mentioned above assumed the character of the joint family property when a cloud was cast on the said bequest because the daughters of Ram Sewak assailed the Will and in order to save these lands Mathura Prasad paid an amount of Rs. 26,000/- to the daughters of Ram Sewak from the joint family funds. The case of the defendants No. 5 and 6 is that the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was paid from the income of the 57 acres of land which had been received in the year 1967 from Ram Sewak. The amount was paid in the year 1977. On this crucial point there is no documentary evidence from either side. Jainarain (D.W. 3) has deposed that the money was paid out of the income of 57 acres of land. Plaintiff Ramgulam (P.W. 1) has deposed that the amount of Rs. 26,000/-. was paid by Mathura Prasad and at that time Jagdish and Jainarain had no income of their own. In cross-examination in para 13 he has admitted that Jagdish and Jainarain remained in possession of 57 acres of lands for ten years and then the compromise was effected. The evidence of Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) was recorded on commission. He has deposed that the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was paid out of the income of 57 acres of land over a period of ten years. Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) is the best person to tell the source from which he paid this amount. It is true that he was not keeping any separate account of the income and expenditure of these 57 acres of land but he must have the knowledge from where the amount came. Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) is the best person to tell the source from which he paid this amount. It is true that he was not keeping any separate account of the income and expenditure of these 57 acres of land but he must have the knowledge from where the amount came. It is difficult to hold that the money came from the income of 126 acres of land which was the joint family property. The plaintiff had already separated from the family and three other brothers defendants No. 2 to 4 are also not claiming any share in these 57 acres of land. These lands could definitely generate income to the extent of Rs. 26,000/- in ten years. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was paid out of the income of these lands is correct. There is no weighty reason to take a different view. The lands received from Ram Sewak continued to be the separate property of the defendants No. 5 and 6 and these lands could not be impressed with the character of joint family property as these were not acquired out of the joint nucleus. It is clearly discernible that Mathura Prasad was very calculative and a man of great foresight and managed the affairs in such a way that the distribution of the property amongst six sons was just and equitable so that no one could accuse him of any partiality. His four sons got 29 acres each in 1964 and therefore, the fortune which came from Ram Sewak was given to his two younger sons (almost 28.5 acres to each) so as to keep the scales even. 10. Point (c) There are two houses at Khurai which are claimed by the plaintiff as joint family property. The defendants No. 5 and 6 have contended that these houses are their separate property. The house in Ganj Bazar, Khurai was purchased by registered sale-deed dated 29-8-1959 (Ex. D-7) by Awadhrani, mother of the defendants No. 5 and 6 in their names for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. This sale-deed shows that Jagdish and Jainarain were minors at that time. Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) and Awadhrani (C.W. 2) have deposed that this house was purchased from the Stridhan of Awadhrani. There is a plot which was purchased in auction from the Municipal Council, Khurai as per lease-deed dated 24-1-1962 (Ex. D-2). 5,000/-. This sale-deed shows that Jagdish and Jainarain were minors at that time. Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) and Awadhrani (C.W. 2) have deposed that this house was purchased from the Stridhan of Awadhrani. There is a plot which was purchased in auction from the Municipal Council, Khurai as per lease-deed dated 24-1-1962 (Ex. D-2). This was also purchased in the names of Jagdish Prasad and Jainarain through their mother Awadhrani. Awadhrani was living in well to do family and therefore, it cannot be said that she could not arrange the funds for purchasing the house and the plot. There is no material to show that the consideration for purchasing these two properties moved from the income of 126.70 acres of land which was the joint family property. As the properties stand in the names of Jagdish and Jainarain and these were purchased by their mother as a guardian, it can be presumed that the money was paid by her. There had already been disruption of the coparcenery when the plaintiff separated in the year 1964 and therefore, he does not get any right in these two houses. These houses on the plot were built by the defendants No. 5 and 6. These houses are not the joint family property. 11. There are two tractors, one is MPK-5914 in the name of defendant No. 4 Kanhaiyalal and the other is CPQ-4383 in his name. He claimed to have purchased these tractors out of their separate earnings. One tractor was purchased in the year 1979. It was purchased by taking a loan from the State Bank of India. Mathura Prasad (C.W. 1) has deposed that the tractors belong to his son Kanhaiyalal. Kanhaiyalal was in possession of 29 acres of land at that time. Therefore, it can reasonably be presumed that the tractors were purchased in his name out of his own income. The bank loan was repaid by him. Another tractor was purchased in the year 1971 in the name of Kanhaiyalal and Krishna Murari. They must have purchased it out of the income of their lands which they were holding separately. 12. Two garages in village Khajuria were built for keeping these tractors. The owners of the tractors must have built those garages. The jeep also stands in the name of defendant No. 6 Jainarain as per document Ex. D-25. It was purchased in the year 1980. 12. Two garages in village Khajuria were built for keeping these tractors. The owners of the tractors must have built those garages. The jeep also stands in the name of defendant No. 6 Jainarain as per document Ex. D-25. It was purchased in the year 1980. It must have been purchased out of the income of 57 acres of lands belonging Jainarain and Jagdish which they got from Ram Sewak. Thus, properties detailed in Schedule II and III are held to be separate property of the defendants and these were not the joint family properties. The house in village Khajuria undisputably belongs to the plaintiff. 13. Point (d):- The only joint family property was 126.70 acres of lands of village Khajuria. Out of these lands Mathura Prasad had gifted three acres of land to his daughter Ramwati alias Jamwati. This is permissible under the Hindu Law. Mull' as Hindu Law 17th Edition-page 331. Article 225 provides that although sons acquire by birth rights equal to those of a father in ancestral property both movable and immovable, the father has the power of making "within reasonable limits" gifts of ancestral movable property. Again in Article 226 it is provided that a Hindu father has power to make a gift "within reasonable limits" of ancestral immovable property for "pious purpose". The legal position was examined by the Supreme Court in Guramma vs. Mallappa AIR 1964 SC 5 and it was held that it was competent to a father to make a gift of immovable property to a daughter if the gift is of a reasonable extent having regard to the properties held by the family. In the present case, the gift of three acres of land out of 126.70 acres was within reasonable limits. That has not been challenged by the plaintiff also when he filed the suit as he did not implead the daughter as a party at that time. 14. The father effected the partition on 28-6-1984 in which 17.65 acres of lands were allotted to the plaintiff. It has been found earlier that this partition is not invalid on the ground that the other properties which were said to be of the joint family were not excluded in the partition. As a matter of fact there was no other joint family property. It has been found earlier that this partition is not invalid on the ground that the other properties which were said to be of the joint family were not excluded in the partition. As a matter of fact there was no other joint family property. Therefore, the only ground on which the plaintiff challenges the partition is that it was unjust and unfair. The total lands available for partition were 126.70 acres. The plaintiff had 1/7th share as his mother did not claim any share of her own. The grievance of the plaintiff is that his father kept good quality of lands with him. That is not specifically proved by the plaintiff from his evidence. It cannot be lost sight of that even if the father had kept lands of better quality with him it was in respect of two shares one which could legally be claimed by him and the other by the plaintiffs mother. Therefore, taking that aspect into consideration the grievance of the plaintiff appears to be unfounded. The trial Court has discussed the evidence relating to the fairness of the partition in paras 59 to 64 of the judgment. Even the plaintiffs witnesses admit that the quality of lands given to each of the co-sharers was almost the same. It has also been found that the partition was done by drawing the lots and therefore, any co-sharer could get any of the seven lots. As such this Court agrees with the evidence of the trial Court that the partition made by the father was neither unjust nor unfair. 15. In Mulla's Hindu Law 17th Edition, page 516, Article 323 provides that the father of a joint family has the power to divide family property at any moment during his life, provided he gives his sons equal shares with himself, and if he does so, the effect in law is not only a separation of the father from the sons, but a separation from the sons inter se. The consent of the sons is not necessary for the exercise of that power. This right of a father is known as "superior power" or "peculiar power" or "partia potestas" and has been approved by the Supreme Court in Apporva Shantialal vs. I.T. Commissioner, Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 409 . 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal question. This right of a father is known as "superior power" or "peculiar power" or "partia potestas" and has been approved by the Supreme Court in Apporva Shantialal vs. I.T. Commissioner, Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 409 . 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal question. According to him the definition of "instrument of partition" given in section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in Madhya Pradesh would include (Ex. D-3) and therefore, it was inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court has held that this document was admitted in evidence during the course of recording of the oral evidence of Kanhaiyalal (D.W. 2) and therefore, as per section 36 of the Stamp Act, the admission of the document cannot be called in question in the suit. Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that an objection was raised at the time of the recording of the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (D.W. 2) when this document was tendered in evidence and therefore, this objection should have been decided and the document should not have been admitted. The deposition-sheet of Kanhaiyalal (D.W. 2) has been perused by this Court. In para 3 of his deposition-sheet it is recorded that this document was challenged on the ground that it is "unregistered". It was never challenged on the ground that it is "unstamped". After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court admitted this document and marked it as Ex. D-3 for collateral purpose for proving the possession of the lands by each of the co-sharers. Therefore, now this argument is not open to the appellant that he had objected to its admissibility on the ground that this document was not stamped. Therefore, even if it comes within the definition of "instrument of partition" as amended in Madhya Pradesh, this document cannot be thrown out because its admissibility cannot be challenged as provided in section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 17. The decision of the trial Court on all the points mentioned above is correct. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.