Wallace, J.

1. The contesting defendants have not appeared in this Court.

2. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the appellants, Plaintiff 1 died while the appeal was pending in the lower appellate Court and Ahmed Hussain, her brother, was brought on as her legal representative along with plaintiff 2 already on the record. He is respondent 6 here. It is argued that the lower appellate Courts reasons for holding Exs. B and C invalid are unsound in law. In the case of both, the lower appellate Court held that the gifts were not completed by any delivery of possession. As the gifts were of portions of the family dwelling house, in which the parties have all along been living, the actual divesting by the donors and delivery to the donees was not necessary. Such possession as was suitable and possible in the circumstances was given. See Hussain V. Shaik Mira (1). Further in the case of Ex. B the donee was a minor, who could not take possession, and the intention to give declared by the deed of gift was sufficient, provided the donor and guardian continued to hold the property on behalf of the donee: see again Hussain v. Shaik Mira [1890] 13 Mad. 46. Nor is Ex. B invalid because of the want of c