JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - One Kishan Chand, a Khatri of Amritsar died sonless many years ago, leaving him surviving two widows Mt. Bishen Devi and Mt. Har Kaur (defendant 1) and two daughters by Bishan Devi named Mt. Bal Kaur (plaintiff 1) and Mt. Ram Kaur (plaintiff 3). One of the properties left by the deceased was a shop which was jointly taken possession of by both the widows Mt. Bishan Devi and Mt. Har Kaur. On 19th April 1912 Mt. Bishan Devi made a gift of her half-share in the shop to her daughters Mt. Bal Kuar and Mt. Ram Kaur and their sons Om Parkash (plaintiff 2) and Gopal Das (plaintiff 4), Mt. Bishan Devi, died soon after on 9th June 1912.

2. The other widow, Mt. Har Kaur, sold the whole of the shop to Ghulam Jilani, defendant 2, on 16th December 1916. There have been subsequent alienations of this shop and it now stands in the name of Kishan Chand defendant 5. On 8th October 1925 the present suit was instituted by the two daughters of Mt. Bishen Devi and the two sons of these daughters claiming (a) possession of one-half of the shop which had been gifted to the plaintiffs by Mt. Bishan Devi on 19th April 1912; and (b) a declaration that the sale of the other half by Mt. Har Kaur dated 16th December 1916 shall not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs after her death. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but has been dismissed by the learned District Judge.

3. On second appeal, the first point urged by Mr. Amin Chand for the appellants is that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of one-half of the shop which had been gifted to them by Mt. Bishen Devi. He contends, and in my opinion rightly, that the finding of the learned District Judge, that possession of the gifted portion of the shop did not pass to the donees in 1912, is a very confused one and has not been arrived at after a discussion of the oral and documentary evidence on the record. If the decision of this part of the case had turned on this point alone, it would have been necessary for this Court to set aside the finding and to order a remand or to go into the evidence itself and record an independent finding. But the plaintiffs' claim for possession of this portion of the shop must fail on the short ground that Mt. Bishan Devi had no power to make a valid gift of it to the appellants. On Kishan Chand's death the shop was taken possession of by the two widows jointly as co-heirs. The proposition of Hindu Law is firmly established that when two co-widows succeed as co-heirs to the estate of their husband they take it as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and of equal beneficial enjoyment, and an alienation made by one of such co-widows has no legal effect after her death. Even if it was a fact that the donees had got possession of Mt. Bishan Devi's half-share in 1912, that fact alone would not make the gift valid, especially when they, according to their learned Counsel, lost possession in 1916 at the latest. The gift was, therefore, invalid and the plaintiffs' claim for immediate possession on the basis of this gift fails. It follows from what has been stated above that on Mt. Bishan Devi's death in 1912 Mt. Har Kaur entered into possession of the whole of the shop on the usual widow's estate. It is not denied for the respondents that her rights in the shop were limited and she could sell it only for legal necessity. The reversioners would, therefore, be entitled to claim a declaration that the sale of 1916 was ineffectual against their interests. The learned District Judge has, however, declined to grant the plaintiffs a declaration holding:

(a) that plaintiffs 1 and 3, being the step-daughters of Mt. Har Kaur, had no locus standi to sue; and

(b) that plaintiffs 2 and 4, not being the immediate reversioners, had six years to sue for a declaration under Article 120, and not having sued within that period their claim was time barred.

4. As to (a): Mr. Mehr Chand, for the respondents admits that he is unable to support the