JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Upadhiya has argued this case very ably and strenuously on behalf of the defendant-appellant, but he has not succeeded in convincing us that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous and that we should be justified in interfering with it.

2. The suit was a suit by reversioners for possession of certain property, the last male owner of which was one Sheo Agyan Upadhiya who died in the year 1880. Sheo Agyan left a widow Musammat Subhrani who remained alive till the year 1923. Her daughter Musammat Manraji had predeceased her in the year 1911.

3. It is clear on all hands and there is no doubt that when Musammat Subhrani died the present plaintiffs were the next reversioners of Sheo Agyan.

4. The defendant in the suit was one Radha Kishun who was the father-in-law of Musammat Manraji, the daughter of Sheo Agyan, and he set up a title to certain property which he said had been conveyed to him by a deed of gift which was executed in or about the year 1895 in his favour by the widow, Musammat Subhrani. That document is to be found at page 29 of our record.

5. Radha Kishun relied on this document and put forward the defence that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get possession of the property covered by the document in his favour. He asserted that Musammat Subhrani had not merely the estate of a Hindu female in the property which was left by her deceased husband; he said that under a deed of gift, which Sheo Agyan had executed in favour of his wife in the year 1878, Musammat Subhrani was the absolute owner of the property which had belonged to Sheo Agyan and was, therefore, entitled to dispose of this property in his favour.

6. The Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that under the deed of gift which Sheo Agyan executed in his wife's favour in the year 1878, assuming that this document was intended to take effect, Musammat Subhrani did not acquire an absolute interest but only the limited estate of a Hindu female.

7. We may mention here that the Subordinate Judge has also found with respect to this deed of gift of 1878 that it was never acted upon and was never intended to take effect.

8. If we are in agreement with the Subordinate Judge in his interpretation of the language of the deed of gift of 1878 then we are not called upon to enter into any of the other questions which were raised in the Court below, for if the Subordinate Judge is not wrong in saying that this deed of gift conferred only a limited interest, it follows that the defendant-appellant Radha Kishun has no case. Any inerest he derived from Musammat Subhrani came to an end when that lady died in the year 1923.

9. The deed of gift in question is marked Ex B. and is printed at page 18 of our record. It bears the date 8th of February, 1878. It begins by reciting that Musammat Subhrani is the second wife of the donor Sheo Agyan. It is recited that the lady had served her husband well and that he was much pleased and satisfied with her and that by reason of her good conduct he, of his own accord and free will, was making a gift of the property which he specifies below together with sir, khudkasht lands and all other appurtenances. It is recited in the deed that Sheo Agayan had put his wife into proprietary possession (qabza malikana) of the gifted property and it is farther recited that the lady is authorised to get mutation of names effected in her favour. The deed winds up by a declaration saying that the lady may "enjoy, profit or sustain loss in connection with the property specified in the deed" and that the executant Sheo Agyan would have no objection to it.

10. The words by which the property purports to be transferred to the lady are "bakhsh diya o hiba kar diya", that is to say, I have bestowed and made a gift of this property to my wife. The words in the later clause are the words which have occasioned difficulty and which require to be construed. In describing the position of his wife with regard to this property, the donor Sheo Agyan u