S.O.Misra, J.

1. This appeal involves a controversial question with regard to the effect of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , on the right of the reversioner to challenge an alienation made by the Hindu female in possession of a property as a limited owner. The plaintiff, Sheopujan Pandey, brought a suit for a declaration that two deeds of gift, dated 1-12-1948 and 31-5-1944, executed by defendant No. 3, Barta Kuer, in favour of Nema Fandey and Ramsewak Ojha, respectively, were "farzi, collusive, illegal, null and void and ineffective." They were accordingly not binding upon him, and the aforesaid deeds were illegal, false and fit to be cancelled against the plaintiff. A genealogy was appended to the plaint in support of the plaintiffs reversionary right to challenge the alienations made by Barta Kuer (defendant No. 3). The defendant resisted the suit on a number of grounds. It is, however, unnecessary to refer to those facts in detail because the learned counsel for the parties have not argued any question of fact. The Court below passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff from which defendants Ramsewak Ojha, Nema Pandey and Mt. Barta Kuer have preferred an appeal