1. The plaintiff sues her husband (the 1st defendant) and her husbands mother and sisters and brothers for recovery of a certain property, alleging that it was transferred to her by the 1st defendant in part payment of her mahr. The alleged transfer is by Exhibit A.

2. It is admitted before us that Exhibit A was executed by the 1st defendant, and that mahr was due from him when he executed it. The real contest in this Court is on the question whether it was the 1st defendant or his father who was entitled to the property, at the time when Exhibit A was executed.

3. The property was purchased on 27th March 1903 by the father of the 1st defendant, in the name of the 1st defendant (Exhibit I). On 9th July 1909 it was mortgaged by the two jointly for Rs. 300 (Exhibit II). On 22nd June 1910 Exhibit A was executed by the 1st defendant purporting to transfer the property to the plaintiff. On 1st September 1910, the 1st defendant executed a deed [Exhibit Id (a)] purporting to cancel Exhibit A, and another deed (Exhibit III) purporting to re-transfer the property to his father.

4. The District Judge, reversing the District Munsifs finding, has held that the property passed to the 1st d