B.N.Rai, J.

1. This appeal by two of the transferees and Musammat Rukminia Kuer, who was defendant No. 4 to the title suit, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, first court, Arrah, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1952 by which he had held that the rehan bond in favour of defendant No. 1, Chandradip Rai, and the dedication in favour of defendant No. 5, Ram Lakshman Janki, made by the limited owner, Musammat Rukminia Kuer, was not binding upon the next reversioner to the estate of Ramchandra Rai after the death of the limited owner.

2. The facts necessary for the determination of the points in controversy in this appeal may shortly bo stated as follows : Balchoti Rai, brother of the plaintiff, had died some 33 years ago leaving behind him his minor son, Ramchandra Rai, and his widow, Musammat Rukminia Kuer. After the death of his father, Ramchandra Rai came in possession of his properties and remained in possession thereof until the time of his death which had happened some years after he had attained majority. After the death of Ramchandra Rai, his mother, Musammat Rukminia Kuer, succeeded to the properties left by her deceased son. On