JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against a decree of the learned District Judge of Hardoi upholding the decree of the learned Civil Judge of that place by which the plaintiffs' suit for possession of property left by one Mt. Parbati was dismissed. Mt. Parbati, who died on 3rd March 1931, was the widow of one Jutta Singh, who had a separated brother Dal Singh. Jutta Singh died about the year 1910 but some eight years before his death he had executed and got registered a will in respect of his property by which he bequeathed all his property in equal shares to five legatees, namely (1) his wife, Mt. Parbati, (2) his daughter Mt. Tejni, (3) his brother Dal Singh's daughter's son Subedar Singh, (4) Dal Singh's other grandson Ajrail Singh and (5) Kundan Singh, a cousin of Subhedar, and Ajrail's father, Puran Singh.

2. The will provided that Mt. Parbati would hold the property for her life and that after her death the remaining four legatees would be entitled to the entire property in equal shares. Of the five legatees Mt. Tejni and Subedar died in the lifetime of the testator but when Jutta Singh died his widow Mt. Parbati somehow or other came into possession of the entire property. On Dal Singh's death his property came into the possession of his widow Mt. Jitni and when the latter died in 1914 some of the collateral relations of Dal Singh including Sumer Singh, father of one of the present plaintiffs-appellants, applied for mutation of names. Mt. Parbati also claimed the property left by Dal Singh and the Revenue Court ordered mutation in her favour, so that she remained in possession of Dal Singh's property also without any attempt on the part of the collaterals to dispossess her.

3. On 14th November 1930, Mt. Parbati executed two deeds of gift in favour of Rampal Singh and Banke Singh, defendants-respondents, and some others. After her death in 1931, two suits were brought in the Court of the Civil Judge of Hardoi for possession of the property left by Parbati against the present defendants-respondents. One of the suits, i.e. No. 5, 7 of 1934 was brought by the present appellants and the other, No. 77 of 1934, by some others. As both the sets of the plaintiffs claimed to be reversionary heirs of Jutta Singh and Dal Dal Singh, the suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs in each suit made defendants in the other. As between the two sets of the plaintiffs, the learned Civil Judge held that the present appellants were the reversioners of Jutta Singh and Dal Singh but both the suits were dismissed on the ground that Mt. Parbati was in possession of the property not as a Hindu widow but that she held the property left by Jutta Singh under the will and the property left by Dal Singh as an absolute owner by adverse possession. The plaintiffs in both the suits appealed to the learned District Judge but he dismissed both the appeals so far as it related to possession of the property in suit. The plaintiffs in Suit No. 77 have submitted to the decree of the learned Judge but those of Suit No. 57 have filed this appeal.

4. So far as the property left by Jutta Singh is concerned, it is argued that Parbati was in possession of the property merely as a Hindu widow and not in pursuance of Jutta Singh's will. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs-appellants' case in the Courts below was that Jutta Singh had revoked his will and that the will was never acted upon. Both the pleas were however repelled by both the Courts below and the evidence produced by the appellants disbelieved. The findings that the will was not revoked and that it was acted upon are findings of fact and as such binding on this Court. It was however argued that the Courts below have not given full weight to Ex, 33, which is a copy of a goshwara relating to the mutation case that arose on Jutta Singh's death and showing that it was a case of mutation by "wirasat," but we find that the learned Judges of both the Courts below have considered this document but