JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - On 18th February 1914, Ganga Ram, defendant-appellant, a Kunait of Mauza Shawat in the Simla District executed a document purporting to be a deed of gift, whereby he gave his entire moveable and immovable property to his wife Mt. Shambo for her lifetime, without power to alienate and with directions to maintain his widowed daughter Mt. Birjo and his deaf and dumb son Ratan Das. It was further provided that on the death of Mt. Shambo the property could be taken half and half by Mt. Birjo and Ratan Das aforesaid. Various directions were then given as to the possession and enjoyment of the property by P-2 Mt. Birjo and Ratan Das in certain contingencies and to its devolution after their respective deaths.

2. The document was registered as a deed of gift on 19th February 1914 and mutation was duly effected in favour of Mt. Shambo. Mt. Shambo died in 1914 and on 12th April 1925 Ganga Ram executed another document stating therein that the deed which he had executed on 19th February 1914, was a combination of a gift of a life-estate to his wife Mt. Shambo and a will in favour of Mt. Birjo and Ratan Das and that as Mt. Shambo had died and Mt. Birjo had become disobedient to him and was not likely to look after his deaf and dumb son Ratan Das, he revoked that deed and declared it to be null and void. This document was registered on 22nd April 1925. On this the present suit was instituted on 20th June 1925 by Mt. Birjo for herself and as the next friend of Ratan Das the beneficiaries under the document of 1914, for a declaration that they were in possession of the property as owners and for issue of an injunction restraining the defendant Ganga Ram from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property in any way.

3. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge has decreed it.

Ganga Ram, defendant-appellant, had come up on second appeal to this Court and I have heard the case fully argued by Sir Abdul Qadir on his behalf and Mr. Balwant Rai has addressed me on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. The sole question to be decided is whether the document of 19th February 1914, is a will or a gift or partly a, gift and partly a will. Sir Abdul Qadir contends that in its entirety the document was a will in favour of Mt. Shambo and the descendants of the executant Ganga Ram.

4. I am, however, unable to accept this contention. So far as Mt. Shambo is concerned the document purported to devise a life-estate in praesenti in her favour and it has been found by the Courts below that Mt. Shambo was put in actual" possession of the entire property by Ganga Ram immediately after the execution of that document. The revenue records show that mutation was effected in her name as full owner and the abstract from the girdawari papers proves that she was in actual possession of most of the land for a period of ten years till her death. It must, therefore, be held that so far as Mt. Shambo was concerned the document was a gift and not a will.

5. Sir Abdul Qadir's main contention, however, is that even if the finding as to the nature of the estate that passed to Mt. Shambo be correct, the document taken as a whole was of a composite nature being a gift in praesenti of a life-estate in favour of Mt. Shambo and a will so far as the disposition in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and after their death in favour of the other daughter of Ganga Ram and her children were concerned. He contended that as Mt. Shambo had predeceased Ganga Ram he had full power to revoke that portion of the deed of 1914 which was of a testamentary character and that he had done so by the deed of 12th April 1925.

6. In order to determine the true nature of the deed we must examine its terms as a whole and try to gather from the phraseology used the real intention of its executant. Sir Abdul Qadir has argued that from the opening sentence of the document it is clear that Ganga Ram was oppre