JUDGMENT

Bajpai, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendants against whom the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession of the plaint property has been decreed by the Courts below. The facts are that one Mt. Anjora Kuar was the widow of Ram Rachha Lal and was, as a Hindu widow, possessed of a certain zamindari property and a house. On 18th February 1878, she executed a document which purported to be a perpetual lease in favour of her brother's son by which she leased out the zamindari property to him. Mt. Anjora Kuar died in October 1925. The plaintiffs who are the reversioners of Ram Richha Lal brought the present suit in 1929 for recovery of possession over the leased property and the house owned by Mt. Anjora Kuar. It is conceded by the appellants that so far as the house is concerned, the appellants cannot, in view of the findings of the Courts below, lay any claim and the suit has been rightly decreed regarding the same. It has however been strongly contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the leased property. There is a pedigree given at the foot of the plaint and it is said that a perusal of the pedigree will show that when the lease was executed in 1878 the entire body of presumptive reversioners, namely Pyare Lal, Jagdamba Sahai, Naubat and Jawahar Lal consented to the lease. Pyare Lal who was the next reversioner actually drew up the document, presented it for registration and identified the lady before the Sub-Registrar. Naubat, Jawahar Lal and Jagdamba Sahai were attesting witnesses to the document. A translation of the lease has been given to me and from that it appears that the facts stated above are correct. There is a slight error in the names of the attesting witnesses inasmuch as Mohan Lal has been put down for Naubat, but there can be no doubt that Mohan Lal is a mistake for Naubat. It is then argued that the transaction, inasmuch as it was consented to by the entire body of presumptive reversioners, cannot be challenged at the instance of'the reversioners who happen to be alive at the time of the Hindu widow's death.

2. The first question that arises for determination is to find out exactly the nature of the transaction evidenced by the document of 1878. The plaintiffs styled it a deed and the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the document is not supported by any consideration. The Court of first instance at issue 8 says as follows:

It is obvious that the lease in question is without consideration and that the lady had no necessity to execute it.

3. The lower appellate Court on issue 2 says:

In this case there was no valuable consideration paid at the time of the lease and hence the question of legal necessity did not arise.

4. I am also of the opinion that the document is not supported by consideration and is far all practical purposes a deed of gift. There is intrinsic evidence in the document itself for this conclusion. The lady after reciting her right in the property says:

Chandi Prasad, my own brother's son of Bhiku Lal has been living with me like a son since the death of my husband. I have brought him up like a son and educated him. Having regard to the transitory state of life, it is necessary that I should execute an absolute document in his favour.... I covenant that the said lessee shall remain in possession of all the rights aforesaid and out of Rs. 30 the fixed amount he shall pay Rs. 23-5-3 the Government revenue every year and pay Rs. 6-11-0 (the balance) of the assessed rent to me and my heirs and representatives year after year and he shall bring to his use the balance of the profits, produce or income.... I or my heirs and representatives shall have no kind of right or claim or dispute as regards the property, except realising the fixed amount of rent aforesaid nor shall we have a right at any time to make any enhancement or alteration in the fixed jama or cause any interference. If we do so, it shall be unlawful in Court.

5. The above passages in th