JUDGMENT

Simpson, A J C - This is a second civil appeal. The following is the pedigree:

   TABLE

2. The suit was brought by Jaikaran Singh, for a declaration that a mortgage deed and a deed of gift executed by Mt. Umrai Kunwar will not be binding after her death on the reversioners of her husband. The defence was that Mt. Umrai Kunwar was full owner of the property, and did not hold as a Hindu widow. Her rights are based upon a deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 16th May, 1908. This is a deed of partition stamped and registered. The parties to it are Jai Karan Singh, along with Mt. Jannu Kunwar, the widow of Sripat Singh, as guardian of her two sons, Bhowani Singh and Ram Bharose Singh, making up the first party. The two sons of Jagmohan Singh, Ahbaran Singh, defendant 8, and Mahadeo Singh, defendant 9, making up the second party; and Mt. Umrai Kunwar, who is described as the wife of Jaidat Singh, deceased, making up the third party. These are all described as co-sharers, and they proceed to divide up the property among themselves. Paragraph 11 confers on each of them the fullest right of ownership. There is nothing in any part of the document on which it is possible to found a distinction between the right acquired by Mt. Umrai Kunwar and the right acquired by Jaikaran Singh himself or any of the male co-sharers. This being so, it is not possible to cut down the rights of Mt. Umrai Kunwar. The old idea expressed for example in Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha (1903) 25 All. 351 has been disapproved of when that case was appealed to the Privy Council in Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha (1908) 30 All. 84. The true doctrine is that if a deed purports to convey full proprietary rights to a Hindu widow it will be construed to convey full proprietary rights to her, unless there is anything in the context or surrounding circumstances to qualify such a meaning. It is not so qualified by the mere fact that she is a widow. This being so, the decision of the Court of trial, that plaintiff's suit must be dismissed, which was confirmed by the first Court of appeal is correct and plaintiff's second appeal which is now before me must be dismissed with costs.