S.M. SIKRI, J.

(1) THIS appeal byspecial leave is directed against the order of the High court of Punjab dismissing in limine the second appeal filed by Mst. Mahli, plaintiff, now appellant before us, against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), dismissing the first appeal from the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge, III Glass, Rohtak, filed by the plaintiff and accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. The Trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of l/9th share of the land in dispute.

(2) IN order to appreciate the points debated before us it is necessary to set out the pedigree table and a few facts.

(3) CHANDGI owned fair amount of land in village Asan, Tehsil and District Rohtak. He was Jat by caste and governed by Punjab Customary Law. On 21/11/1954, he made an oral gift of 2/3rds of the land in favour of Ranbir Singh and Hoshiar Singh, his grandsons, his son Ram Sarup having died. Mutation was entered by the Patwari and submitted for sanction. The mutation was reviewed because this mutation had been "decided (after) the date of possession of land given vide mutation 1290 respecting repartition". This apparently has reference to repartition proceedings in consolidation proceedings. At any rate, the mutation regarding Tamlik (gift) of 2/3rd share measuring 205-7 Kanals of land, entered at Khewat No. 18, comprising 43 plots, measuring 308-1 Kanals, together with rights in Shamlat was sanctioned.

(4) IN Column 9 headed "Name of the owner with description" is mentioned "Ranbir Singh and Hoshiar Singh, s/o Ram Sarup, s/o Chandgi, s/o Nota, residents of the village in equal shares-2/3 shares, remaining as before 1/3 share". Under the heading "name of the cultivator with description" in Column 5 is mentioned "under personal cultivation".

(5) ON 16/08/1961, Chandgi Ram registered a will and bequeathed the remaining 1/3rd share of the lands in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 6/04/1963, Chandgi Ram died. On 16/11/1963, Mst. Mahli filed a suit for decree for possession of l/6th share in the lands in dispute. The main grounds alleged in the plaint were that the gift, dated 21/11/1954, was void because it was made in order to defeat the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and further that no possession had been transferred to the donees Ranbir Singh and Hoshiar Singh who were minors at that time. The will was challenged on various grounds but we are only concerned with one ground, namely, that the land being ancestral in his hands, Chandgi Ram could not make a will and, at any rate, the plaintiff was entitled to challenge this alienation because she had become an heir under S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Trial court decreed the suit to the extent of 1/9th of the land in dispute.

(6) ON appeal, however, the suit was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge. He held that both the gift and the will were valid and the plaintiff wai not entitled to challenge the alienation, even if the property was ancestral in the hands of Chandgi Ram. He further held that there had been transfer of possession under the gift, and relying on Faujdar v. Bhamma he held that, at any rate, the possession of the donor was on behalf of the donees as the donees were minors who lived alongwith their mother with the donor.

(7) THE High court dismissed the appeal of Mst. Mahli in limine and the learned Single Judge refused to grant acertificate of fitness for appeal to the Letters Patent bench. Having obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us.

(8) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Datta, contends (1) that the gift was not valid because possession had not been delivered, and (2) that the plaintiff was entitled to challenge the will as she had been made an heir under the HinduSuccession Act.

(9) COMING to the first point, we agree with the finding of the Senior Sub-Judge