This second appeal raises the question whether there was delivery of possession as required by the Muhammadan law under or pursuant to Exhibit D-8, a deed of settlement in favour of the defendant by her deceased husband, dated the 4th of April, 1944. The plaintiff though originally a Hindu became a Muslim by conversion and afterwards also a wife of the executant of Exhibit D-8. Both the parties to the present suit are Muhammadans, even as the executant of Exhibit D-8, was. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below on the ground that Exhibit D-8 is of no avail to the defendant for want of delivery of possession.

The property was in the hands of tenants at the time of Exhibit D-8. Under it, firstly the settlor reserves to himself the right to receive rents during his lifetime, and secondly he also undertakes to pay municipal taxes. It is contended by Mr. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, that notwithstanding these two undisputed facts there was sufficient delivery of possession as required by the Muhammadan law by the mere declaration to that effect in the document. It is said that the intention to deliver which is unequivocally manifested by the clause of