( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant. The respondent herein filked O. S. No. 230 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tenali for recovery of possessioin of the suit property on the ground that it belonged to his maternal-grand-father. Bhavanam Venkata Reddy and after the death of his last daughter Bhusamma, he suceeded to the property as the next reversioner.

( 2 ) THE defendant contended that the suit property was gifted to Subbamma, one of the daughters of Venkata Reddy by her mother, Konamma, as per the oral directions of her father, Venkata Reddy, lthat there is a family arrangement under which Subbammas absolute rights in the suit properties were recognised and that, in any even, the plaintiff who brought about the attested the Dakhal deed dated 14-10-1906 Ex. B-7 executed by Konamma in favour of Subbamma was estopped from challenging the validity of the Dakhal deed. The defendant claimed as the donee, under Exhibit B-8 from Bakki Reddy who claimed title from Subbamma under a settlement deed executed by her on 3-4-1930 and makred as Exhibit B-9.

( 3 ) BOTH the courts below concurently found that the defendant did not establish the family arrangement as well as the oral gift set up by them. On the question of estoppel, the District Munsif held in paragraph 22 of his judgment that it was impossible to hold that the plaintiff was estopped from questioning Subbammas absolute title to the suit land. He also observed that "the defendants learned Pleader too has not gone to the length of contending that the bar of estopel can be raised against the plaintiff based on his connection with the original of Ex. B-7 alone. "though no specific ground of appeal was raised by the defnednat in regard to estoppel in the Memorandum of Appeal, filed before the Subordinate Judge of Tenail, the Subordinate Judge raised the question of estoppel as the 4th point for consideration and disposed it of in paragraph 8 in a single sentence that he was not able to see how plaintiff was estopped on account of his being a party attestor in the gift deed Exhibit B-7.

( 4 ) THE defendant has filed the Second Appeal and the main post urged by his advocate was that the plea of estoppel ought to have been found in his favour on the strength of the Full Bench decision in -- Ramakotayya v. Vira Raghavayya, AIR 1929 Mad 502 (A ). For that purpose he relied upon the following facts found in his favour by both the courts below: " (1) The plaintiff, the daughters son of Konamma was living with her at the time of execution of the Dakhal Deed Ex. B. 7 (2) The stamp papers for Ex. B. 7 were purcahsed in his name (3) He attested the document Ex. B-7 and was an identifying witness at the time of its registration.

( 5 ) THE simple question that arises for consideration is whether these admitted facts are sufficient to found at estoppel and debar the plaintiff from recovering possession of the suit property when succession opened on the death of the last daughter, Bhusamma on 16-10-1945. The Dakhal deed executed by Konamma in favour of her daughter Subbamma, runs as follows: "dakhal deed (conveyance deed) in respect of Seri Wet land worth Rs. 300. 00 executed on 14-10-1906. Dakhal deed executed in favour of Appi Reddis wife Subbamma by Bhavanam Venkatareddis wife Konamma. " "as the property, soon after the death of your father, passed into your possession towards (your share and as there was no public document you required me to execute a Dakhal deed (conveyance deed ). Therefore, you shall henceforth be paying Government cist etc. from now onward and enjoy the property from son to grandson with powers of sale, gift, mortgage, and exchange. Neither myself nor my successors will question neither you nor your heirs. When you demand, I am prepared to relinquish the Patta in my name and transfer it to your name. If in respect of this Dakhal deed any disputes etc. arise from Gnatis, Samantas and others I shall see that this Dakhal deed is given effe