A.N.Grover, J.

(1) HIS is an appeal by certificate from a judgment and decree of the Andhra Pradesh High court. The suit out of which the appeal arises relates to the properties which originally belonged to Nawab Zainulabud Din Khan, a retired Revenue Officer, who died at Hyderabad on 18/12/1953. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the relationship between the parties :

(2) IN 1954 Syed Arifuddin who claimed to be the son of Syed Zainulabudin Khan from his wile Mehrunnissa Begam instituted a suit in forma pauperis impleading Khaderunnissa Begam defendant No. 1 who was the daughter and Asmutunnisa Begam defendant No. 2 who was the widow of the deceased as parties. It was stated that his deceased father had left movable and immovable properties set out in lists A, B, and C valued approximately at Rs. 1,61,516-10-8. Out of these defendant No. 1 was entitled to 1/3 share, defendant No. 2 to 1/8 share and to the balance of the property the plaintiff was entitled. Subsequently defendants 3 to 6 applied to the court to be impleaded as defendants as they also claimed interest in the suit properties. The application was granted and the plaintiff was directed to implead them as defendants. The first defendant who is the real sister of the plaintiff admitted the correctness of the case set up by the plaintiff. The second defendant denied that the plaintiff was the son of Syed Zainulabudin Khan as he was born two years after the mother had been divorced by him. Defendants 3, 5 and 6 the sons of Syed Posha Mohiuddin Khan who was the brother of Syed Zainulabudin Khan and defendant 4 son of defendant 3 admitted the relationship of the first and the second defendants to the deceased. They, however, maintained that the plaintiff was not the son and was not thus entitled to any share in his estate. It is unnecessary to refer to all the pleas contained in their joint written statement about the various properties. The main controversy has now centered on one property called "Somajiguda House" which was shown as Item No. 1 in Schedule "A". It was alleged by these defendants that this had been gifted away by Syed Zainulabudin Khan in his lifetime to defendant No. 4.

(3) THE Trial court held, inter alia, that the house "Somajiguda" had been gifted by Syed Zainulabudin Khan to Mir Dawar Ali Khan defendant No. 4 during his lifetime. On the question of legitimacy of the plaintiff the Trial court found in his favour. The High court reversed the decision of the Trial court on the issue relating to the gift of the aforesaid property. It concurred in the finding of the Trial court that the plaintiff was the son of Syed Zainulabudin Khan and was born on 13/05/1949.

(4) WE do not consider it necessary to refer to the other points as well as the properties which were in dispute before the courts below as the learned counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments principally to the question of gift alleged to have been made by Syed Zainulabudin Khan in favour of defendant No. 4. He also made an attempt to assail the decision on the legitimacy of the plaintiff and faintly submitted that an old Citreon Car which was being claimed by the appellants should have been held to be the property of defendant No. 3 as it had been given to him by the deceased during his life-time.

(5) THE gift is alleged to have been made orally on 25/07/1952, by Syed Zainulabudin Khan in favour of defendant No. 4 between 4 to 5 p. m. Certain witnesses, namely, Mir Raza Ali D. W. 5 and Zahur Nawaz Jung D. W. 6 were stated to be present at that time. Mir Muzaffuruddin Khan the father of the donee who was a minor is alleged to have accepted the gift on his behalf. It is said that the possession of the property which had been gifted was delivered by the donor by opening the house which was lying vacant and delivering the key to Syed Muzaffuruddin Khan. On 29/11/1952, Syed Zainulabudin Khan executed a docume