Subrahmania Aiyar, J.

1. One Seshappaien died in 1859, leaving him surviving a widow the late Thaiyyu Animal, a son and a daughter. The son as the sole surviving male member of the family to which Seshappaien belonged, took the whole of the joint estate. On his death a few years afterwards while remaining unmarried, his mother Thaiyyu Animal inherited the estate. Subsequently, she gave her daughter in marriage and at the time of the marriage made a gift of a portion of the lands, inherited by her, to her son-in-law. The District Munsif find the Subordinate Judge held that the gift was binding upon the appellant who as the heir of the last full owner has since the demise of Thaiyyu Ammal become entitled to succeed to the property. ON behalf of the appellant it was urged that a Hindu qualified owner in the position of Thaiyyu Ammal has no authority to make such a gift and even should it be held that she had, the gift in question in the present instance, ought, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to be declared unjustifiable. As to the latter part of this contention it may at once be observed that I see no grounds for differing from the lower Court, in their con