JUDGMENT D. Dash, J.- The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Boudh in RFA No.12 of 2013. By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court while dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Appellant (defendant) under section 96 of the Code has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Boudh in under Civil Suit No.76 of 2011. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of their possession in the suit land with further declaration that the registered deed of gift dated 02.09.1967 said to have been executed by their maternal grandmother, namely, Sapura Dehuri in favour of Bilasha Dehuri is illegal and void, so also the Will dated 12.04.2011 purported to have been executed by Late Biranchi Dehuri in favour of the Appellant-Defendant. Further, relief of permanent injunction has also been sought for. The Suit having been decreed, this Appellant-Defendant which has also been dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court. 3. The Plaintiff's case in short is that the land described in the schedule of the plaint belong to one Barsana Bhukta who died leaving his widow Sapura and four daughters namely, Budhubari, Asha, Nirasa and Bilasa. Budhubari and Asha died issueless in the year, 1970 and 1980 respectively. In the year 1983, Nirasa died leaving as heir heirs, her two sons, the Plaintiffs. After the death of the daughters of Barsana, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the property. The Plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit No.56 of 2009 for partition of the suit land arraigning Bilasha as the Defendant. Bilasha died during the said suit and then her husband Biranchi came to be substituted. He filed the written statement claiming exclusive right over the suit land on the strength of one registered of deed of gift dated 02.09.1967 covering the entire property standing in favour of his wife, Bilasha which he inherited upon Bilasha's death. With that stand being taken by the Biranchi, he, however, died before that suit came up for adjudication. He filed the written statement claiming exclusive right over the suit land on the strength of one registered of deed of gift dated 02.09.1967 covering the entire property standing in favour of his wife, Bilasha which he inherited upon Bilasha's death. With that stand being taken by the Biranchi, he, however, died before that suit came up for adjudication. At that juncture, this Defendant who is the nephew of Biranchi (sister's son) filed an application for being impleaded as party to that Suit. He claimed his right, title and interest over the suit land on the strength of a Will dated 12.04.2011 executed by said Biranchi who was the receipient under the deed of gift executed by Sapura in favour of his wife and then on her death by inheritance. It may be stated here Defendant is the sister's son of Biranchi. Plaintiffs state that they had performed the funeral right of both Bilasha and Biranchi. After death of Bilasha, they became the owners of the same and possessed the same all along Stating the Biranchi had no right to bequeath the property by executing the Will in favour of the Defendant. The recording of the suit land during pendency of the Suit in the name of Biranchi is said to be in collusion with the Revenue Authority behind the back of the Plaintiffs which had been challenged by carrying Mutation Appeal. In view of all such developments coming to the notice of the Plaintiffs as regards the claim based on the registered gift deed and then again the Will, the said Suit being withdrawn by them, with due permission, the present Suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid has been filed. 4. The Defendant in his written statement traversing the plaint averments has stated that the Plaintiffs as well as their mother, Nirasa were well aware of the execution and registration of the gift deed on 02.09.1967 and there was no objection from their side at any point of time when they were also neither in possession of the suit land nor paying the land revenue for the same. It is stated that Biranchi after marrying Bilasha, stayed in the house of Sapura as an illatom son-in-law and as such was cultivating suit land with Bilasha. It is stated that Biranchi after marrying Bilasha, stayed in the house of Sapura as an illatom son-in-law and as such was cultivating suit land with Bilasha. He and Bilasha were taking of the care of Sapura for which being so satisfied Sapura had gifted away the suit land in favour of Bilasha followed by delivery of possession. It is, thus, stated that having obtained possession of the suit land by virtue of and under that gift, Bilasha possessed the same. It is alleged that Nirasa was residing in her in-laws house in a village standing at a distance of 70 kms. from the village where the suit land situates. She was not taking care of her old parents. On the death of Bilasha, her husband Biranchi with his nephew, the Defendant (Bishnu) had performed her funeral ceremony. Bilash, during her lifetime as also Biranchi out of love and affection and being satisfied with the care and service of the Defendant, out of love and affection had decided to bequeath the suit land in favour of the Defendant. But unfortunately, Bilasha expired without executing the Will. So, Biranchi, in a fit state of mind executed the Will on 12.04.2011 bequething the properties in favour of the Defendant. On the death of Biranchi, the Defendant possessed the suit land as its absolute owner and has been paying the rent. It is stated that no such fraud has been practiced in preparation of the Will which had been executed by Biranchi out of his own free Will and volition without any influence whatsoever from any quarter in presence of witnesses and as per law. Thus, the Defendant has claimed his absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit land denying the claim of the Plaintiffs over the same in any manner. 5. The Trial Court faced with above rival pleadings framed as many as nine issues of which important are Issue nos. 6, 7 and 8. Taking up all those for decision, on going through the evidence and upon their examination, the finding has been rendered that the registered gift deed dated 02.09.1967 and the Will dated 12.04.2011 are invalid and inoperative in the eye of law. It has finally been held that the Plaintiffs have the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Taking up all those for decision, on going through the evidence and upon their examination, the finding has been rendered that the registered gift deed dated 02.09.1967 and the Will dated 12.04.2011 are invalid and inoperative in the eye of law. It has finally been held that the Plaintiffs have the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The defendants having thus suffered from the judgment and decree passed in the Suit in decreeing the same granting the reliefs to the Plaintiffs, had filed the First Appeal. 6. The First Appellate Court in addressing the rival contentions raised before it, has firstly repelled the contention raised from the side of the Defendant that the suit land devolved upon the Sapura not by inheritance but by operation of law. Having held so, it has been said that the devolution of the property on the death of Barsana in the year 1959 would be governed under the provision of Section-8 and Section-15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 7. Next, it has been held that when Sapura with her four daughters being Class-1 heirs together owned the properties having equal shares; Sapura alone had no legal authority or competency to gift away the entire property in favour of one daughter namely, Bilasha without the consent of other three. So the action of Sapura in gifting away the entire suit land over which her three daughter had also equal right has not been found to be legal and within the legal competency of Sapura. Accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court that the registered gift deed dated 02.09.1967 is void and inoperative has been accepted. Then coming to the Will, the testator of Biranchi having been found to be having no right, title and interest over the property covered under the Will, the said Will has been held to be having no value in the eye of law and thus not even worth the value of the paper written on. With these findings, the First Appeal having been dismissed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court entitling the Plaintiffs to the reliefs claimed have been confirmed. 8. With these findings, the First Appeal having been dismissed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court entitling the Plaintiffs to the reliefs claimed have been confirmed. 8. The Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- 'Whether on the face of the finding of the courts below that the deed of gift was duly executed by Sapura and it was also duly attested as per law, the courts below have fallen in error by not holding the said gift to be valid at least to the extent of the interest that the donor Sapura had over said property of Barsana? 9. Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Bilasha having executed the deed of gift which was registered on 02.09.1967 (Ext.A) which has been proved by leading, clear, cogent and acceptable evidence as to its execution attestation and more importantly, the subsequent acceptance merely because the entire suit property stood covered under the same, the view cannot be taken that since the donor Sapura had no right over the entire property; the gift deed so executed and proved is invalid. He further submits that on the basis of the evidence on record, it has to be held that Bilasha by the said gift of deed, Ext.A derived interest of Sapura over the entire land of Barsana. He, thus, submits that when Bilasha is found to have got the interest of Sapura that she was having over the land of Barsana; notwithstanding the validity of the Will executed by Biranchi whereby the Defendant had been bequeathed with the property, the Defendant being the heir of Biranchi is the owner of the said property as upon Bilasha's death, the property had come to the hands of Biranchi as provided in section 15(1)(a) read with section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act and thus the Defendant being his sister's son stands to succeed to the same. He thus submits that the suit of the Plaintiffs as laid and for the reliefs claim ought to have been dismissed. 10. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Respondents contends all in favour of the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court. He thus submits that the suit of the Plaintiffs as laid and for the reliefs claim ought to have been dismissed. 10. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Respondents contends all in favour of the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court. He submits that even without going to the aspect of valid execution of the deed of gift, attestation and acceptance as shown in evidence, it would be seen that on the date of its execution by Sapura in the year, 1967, Nirasa, Asha and Budhubari were alive. Thus she had no authority to gift away the entire land that had come to her hands as well as upon the hands of her four daughters. It is submitted that the equitable principle of law that the sale of joint property made by one of the co-sharers, even if that is not valid with respect to the land indicated in the sale-deed in specific or even the entire joint property; it remains valid to the extent of the share of the vendor has no applicability at all to a case of gift and like a purchaser in case of farmer, the donor in case of latter cannot institute a Suit for partition so as to carve out the share of the donor and work out in adjusting up-to the extent of the share of the donor and obtain a decree to that effect. He submits that the impermissibility is because the most essential ingredient of gift as to acceptance in such cases wholly lacks and is not at all legally tenable. He further submits that in case of a gift, it cannot be held to be valid in piecemeal, i.e., only with respect to part property or some share that the donor has/had over the property as the case may be. It has either to stand as a whole or not at all. He, therefore, submits the finding that the gift deed, Ext.A is not cognizable in the eye of law for any purpose whatsoever has to receive the affirmation. 11. There stands no dispute with the factual position that the property in suit originally belonged to Barsana Bhukta who died in the year, 1959 leaving behind his wife-Sapura and four daughters. On the death of Barsana, his widow Sapura and her four daughters together inherited the property. 11. There stands no dispute with the factual position that the property in suit originally belonged to Barsana Bhukta who died in the year, 1959 leaving behind his wife-Sapura and four daughters. On the death of Barsana, his widow Sapura and her four daughters together inherited the property. Thus, on that date each had 1/5th share over the suit property. It is said that Sapura in the year, 1967 had executed a deed of gift in favour of one of her daughters namely, Bilasha who happens to be the wife of Biranchi. The first question arises as to whether Sapura was competent and having the authority to execute the entire land inherited by her with her four daughters in favour of one of the daughters so as to clothe her with the ownership over the entire property. The answer to this stands as 'No', with which of course Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant has no disagreement. The next question stands whether despite the fact that the deed of gift covering the entire property of Barsana inherited by Sapura and her four daughters if has been duly executed would stand valid and to the recognition in so far as interest of Sapura over the suit land is concerned i.e. 1/5th of the total extent of land. There is a long catena of decision holding that the gift by coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property is void. It is not necessary to refer all these decisions instead it would be suffice for the purpose in referring to the following statement of law in Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th Edition Para 382:- '382, Gift Invalid - It is now equally well settled in all the provinces that a gift or devise by a coparcener in a Mitakshara family of his undivided interest is wholly invalid. .. A coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the family property, movable or immovable, either to a stranger or to a relative except for purposes warranted by special texts.' Mulla's Hindu Law, 24th Edition Article-256 Para-405 which is as follows:- '256, Gift of undivided interest- (1) According to the Mitakshara Law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in corparcenary property by gift. Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which precludes the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners.' 12. It is also settled law that a Hindu father or other managing member has the power to make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for 'pious purposes'. In case of R. Kuppaya -V- Raja Gounder (2004) 1 SCC 295 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, examining the whole question, has held that it was competent for a father to make a gift of immovable property to a daughter, if the gift is of reasonable extent having regard to the properties held by the family. The emphasis has been that the gift must be of a 'reasonable extent'. Thus, on facts, in order to say that it is invalid, it has to be found that it is beyond the reasonable limit. This Court, in Tara Sahuani -V- Raghunath; AIR 1963 Ori 59, has held that a father can make a gift of a small portion of ancestral immovable property to his daughter at or after her marriage if the extent of gift is reasonable and particularly if she is in poor circumstances. In the given case for a moment, even taking Sapura as the head and manager of the family, we sit over to view the matter, the gift itself being in respect of entire property in the hands of the five class 1 heirs; under no circumstance can be held to be of reasonable extent which could have been taken up consideration had it been with respect to a specific portion of reasonable extent. 13. Indisputably, the property of Barsana had not been partitioned at any time during the lifetime of Sapura. The suit land was under the joint ownership of Sapura and her four daughters. By said act of the Sapura in executing the deed of gift in favour of Bilasha, the consent has not been given at least by her rest three other daughters who all were then alive. Sapura had only 1/5th interest over the said suit land. Bilasha died on 14.01.2010. By said act of the Sapura in executing the deed of gift in favour of Bilasha, the consent has not been given at least by her rest three other daughters who all were then alive. Sapura had only 1/5th interest over the said suit land. Bilasha died on 14.01.2010. When Sapura and her four daughters had inherited the property upon death of Barsana as the Class-1 heirs even if it is taken that the entire property was in possession of the Sapura in the eye of law, the same is for and on behalf of all. The legal position stands to recognize that each of the owners would be deemed to be having the right and possession over every inch of the property till the same is partitioned amongst them in metes and bounds and so worked out. 14. Section-122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982 defines the gift. It is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property, made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he/she is still capable of giving. Sapura was only having 1/5th interest over the property and there was no partition amongst the five. So, Sapura cannot be said to be having any definite property, as of her share with her which could have only been worked out in a partition with others, which is not the case here. Thus, here the interest of the donor over the property would not got covered under the definition of gift as most importantly, here in such a case the acceptance of the same by the done cannot be found out being faced with uncertainty as to which portion would be wholly wanting that which portion of the property, the donee would be accepting to be the property gifted to her. The legislature, therefore, while enacting section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act has confined its operation to the Will or other Testamentary Dispositions which do not include 'Gift'. The legislature, therefore, while enacting section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act has confined its operation to the Will or other Testamentary Dispositions which do not include 'Gift'. It would have been permissible for Sapura to go for a sale for valuable consideration or a testamentary dispossession and will whereby the vendee of the beneficiary under the transaction as the case may be could have been equitably fed with the grant as would be falling to the share of the executants within the extent as that of his/her; though not however to the exact property described in the transaction. That is the reason the purchaser of a portion of a joint family property or joint property equitable remedy for filing a suit for partition in getting the share of his vendor craved out and finally getting the extent of his purchased land adjusted towards share of vendor to the extent as far as possible. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons in my considered view the registered deed of gift said to have been executed by Sapura on 12.09.1967 gifting away the property in suit in favour of one of her daughter namely, Bilasha is neither valid in its entirety nor can it be said to be valid up to the extent of her share over the entire property belonging to her and her four daughters. Under the given circumstance, Sapura was neither competent nor was having the authority to make a gift of the property inherited by her and her four daughters either in whole or even to the extent ofher interest. The answer to the substantial question of law thus is returned against the sustainability of the said deed of gift executedby Sapura. 14. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.