JUDGMENT

Misra, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit brought by her for recovery of a share in the property left by her son, one Syei Murtaza, which she alleged she was entitled to. The facts shortly stated are:

The plaintiff is the wife of one Syed Mushaf Husain, who is defendant 1, in the case. Defendants 2 and 3, Syed Raziuddin and Syed Abbas Husain, respectively, are her sons from defendant 1. There was a third son, named Syed Murtaza, who died on the 18th Apm 1910. Mushaf Husaia executed a deed of settlement (tamliknama), dated the 30th of March 1906, under which he settled his property in equal shares upon his three sons, defendants 2 and 3, and the above-named Syed Murtaza, since deceased. Under the terms of that deed various sums were allotted for maintenance of the daughter, wife and mother of the executant, defendant 1. One of the conditions embodied in the deed was to the effect that if any of his sons upon whom the property has been settled died without leaving any male issue, his one third share would devolve upon the surviving brothers, and in no case other heirs of the deceased would be entitled to that property. After the execution of the deed, mutation of names was effected in favour of the three sons of defendant 1 in equal shares. One of the sons, Syed Murtaza, died as stated above on the 18th April 1910, and in respect of his one-third share the names of his other two brothers were brought on the record. The plaintiff claims her legal share in that one-third share left by her deceased son, Syed Murtaza. Defendants 4 to 36 were impleaded, being transferees of different portions of the property in suit from defendant 1.

Defendant 1, the husband of the plaintiff and father of defendants 2 and 3, did not contest the suit and the proceedings were held ex parte against him. Defendants 2 and 3 and the transferees-defendants contested the suit. The main plea taken by them in defence was that on a proper interpretation of the deed of settlement (tamliknama) the interest conferred upon Syed Murtaza was merely a life estate, or, in any case, an estate which came to an end on his death because he died issueless. The contention was that whatever interest was conferred on him it did not pass by inheritance after his death to his mother, the plaintiff. The transferees also contended that, under Section 41, Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), they being bona fide transferees for value, were protected and that the plaintiff's suit could not be maintained against them. It is not necessary for purposes of this appeal to enumerate other pleas raised in defence, because we are not in any way concerned with them in appeal.

3. The two main points round which the contest centred were:

(1)Whether the rights conferred upon Syed Murtaza under the terms of the deed of settlement, dated the 30th March 1906, could be inherited by the plaintiff Syed Murtaza having died issueless?

(2)Whether the transferees-defendants were protected under Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, as mentioned above?

4. The learned Subordinate Judge of Rae Barely, who tried the case, came to the conclusion that the rights conferred under the deed of settlement on Syed Murtaza came to an end on his death because he died issueless, that the said rights had passed on by survivorship to his other two brothers, defendants 2 and 3, and that the plaintiff did not inherit anything. He held that the transferees-defendants who had taken transfers of portions of the property in suit were not protected under Section 41, Transfer of Property Act.

5. The plaintiff has now come up to this Court in appeal, and the point argued on her behalf was that under the terms of the deed, if properly interpreted, an absolute estate had been conferred upon each of the three sons, including Syed Murtaza, the deceased, and any condition laid down in respect of the succession of the said property contrary to the Mahommadan law, was void and inoperative.

6. On behalf of the transfere