Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. The facts necessary for the determination of this reference are briefly these.

2. Vemulapalli Subbayya died in 1909, leaving a widow Seethamma, defendant 1 and his mother Bapamma, defendant 3 surviving him. On 2nd October 1918, Seethamma executed a deed of gift in respect of some of the properties that came to her from her husband in favour of her own brother Veeraraghavayya who is imp-leaded as defendant 2 in this case The gift was effected by means of a document which is filed as Ex. 1 in the case, and on 19th October the plaintiff executed a document filed as Ex. 2 which in effect is a complete relinquishment of all of his rights as prospective reversioner and also purports to give full consent to the transaction evidenced by Ex. 1 to which document indeed he was an attesting witness. The question is whether by reason of his action in these matters he is to be held to be precluded from challenging the transaction. The exact wording of the question is as follows:

Where an alienation without necessity (Ex. 1) by a Hindu widow of property forming part of her deceased husbands estate is consented to by the next presumptive male reversioner who, however,