1. This is a suit to recover property. The father of defendants 1 to 3 gave about 40 cents of land to a temple in 1903 on the Sapandikaranam day of his fathers death. There was no writing to evidence it. The donor was himself a trustee of the temple. During his life-time he regarded himself as a lessee on behalf of the temple and gave it the income from the land. After his death, the defendant refused either to give the income or to deliver possession of the land.

2. There were two main defences. One is that as the gift was not in writing and registered, no title passed to the temple. The other is that it was not competent to the donor who was a member of a joint Hindu family at the time of the gift to dispose of ancestral property in the way he did. The courts below rejected these contentions.

3. In Second appeal, Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar relied strongly upon Mannu Lal v. Radhakishenji (1916) 36 I.C. 989 for the first contention. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court do not discuss the question, nor do they refer to the decisions of the other High Courts bearing on it. It is true that the exact point now raised was not decided before, but there are observations in t