Admittedly, the property originally belonged to Smt.Laxmi Devi who is no other than the mother of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and first defendant. It is also not in dispute that Laxmi Devi executed a registered gift deed dated 15-10-1976 conveying the suit property in favour of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal. According to first defendant, that document was obtained by playing fraud on Laxmi Devi and that Laxmi Devi subsequently bequeathed this property in favour of first defendant both by way of gift deed and will, therefore, plaintiffs have no right. The fact remains that the gift deed executed by Laxmi Devi is of the year 1976 and once property was gifted and it was acted upon, donor has no right to make any alienation subsequent to it unless, that document is either cancelled or set aside by any competent court. Till making counter claim in the written statement, no steps are taken for cancellation of gift deed dated 15-10-1976. So, prima facie, till the document is set aside, legal right over the schedule property is with plaintiffs and simply because, D.1 made some constructions, he cannot claim legal right, till the document dated 15-10-1976 is set aside. These aspects are subject matter of the suit which the trial court has to decide on the basis of evidence. Now the only contention of D.1 is that there is no relief in the plaint claiming mesne profits, therefore, direction given by the trial court for deposit of rents is not legal. But this contention cannot be accepted because in a suit for
