Choudhary, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The short facts giving rise to the application are these. Pawanjai Kumar Jain and his son, Rajkumar Jain, were possessed of some properties including two houses in the town of Arrah. Under a deed of family arrangement one of the two houses was to be sold by Pawanjai Kumar Jain in order to pay off all the joint family debts and the other house was to be held by him and his son in equal shares. On 1-7-1939, Pawanjai Kumar Jain executed a deed of gift with respect to all the properties that he had at that time including his interest in the aforesaid two houses to his sister, Sri Kanak Sunder Bibi, the petitioner, who as a consideration thereof accepted the liability to pay his debts and to maintain him till his life. On 29-4-1940, Pawanjai Kumar Jain and Rajkumar Jain were adjudged to be insolvents.

One of the two houses was sold in execution of a mortgage decree for Rs. 27,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 10,700 was taken by the decree-holder towards the satisfaction of his decree and out of the remaining amount of Rs. 16,300 the Receiver realized half of the total price as being the share of Rajkumar Jain. After the order of adjudication the Receiver made an application under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act for the annulment of certain transfers made by Pawanjai Kumar Jai including the aforesaid deed of gift.

On 12-7-1954, the Insolvency Court annulled the deed of gift. One of the contentions raised before it was that the said deed of gift was invalid and was not given effect to. The Insolvency Court, however, for the purpose of the insolvency proceeding, proceeded on the assumption that the deed of gift was valid and operative. It, therefore, left the question of its validity and effectiveness open and held that its annulment was for the limited purpose of the insolvency proceeding and after the discharge of the insolvents any of the gifted properties that would be left over was to revert to the petitioner, the donee.

With regard to the other house, which was not sold, it directed that it should be divided in equal shares between the father and the son. Against the decision of the Insolvency Court the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 1954. Rajkumar Jain, one of the insolvents, Pawanjai Kumar Jain having died in the mean time, filed a cross objection praying that the deed of gift in question should be declared to be a sham and void transaction.

There was another appeal, namely, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 219 of 1954, which had been filed by a purchaser from another donee, namely Janki Kaharin. That appeal was also heard and disposed of along with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133 of 1954. We are, however not concerned with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 219 of 1954 and it is, therefore, not necessary to give the facts giving rise to that appeal.

This Court affirmed the order of the Insolvency court with regard to the annulment of the deed of gift and held that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was without any valuable consideration and she was not a purchaser within the meaning of Sec. 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. The order of the Insolvency Court with respect to the division of the other house, however, was varied by this Court.

It was held by this Court that one of the aforesaid two houses having already been sold and half of the price having already been realised by the Receiver on behalf of the son, the other house which was not sold should be treated under the terms of the family arrangement deed as the property of Pawanjai Kumar Jain as having been given to him for the payment of family debts on condition mentioned therein.

The cross objection filed by Rajkumar Jain was allowed to a limited extent inasmuch as this Court directed that the question whether any part of the gifted properties would revert to the donee or not was left over for decision at a subsequent stage, or by a suit, if