Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to two bighas of nankar land situated in the village Balakmau, which appertained to a 9 pies and odd share belonging to Earn Charan. On the 12th February, 1884, Ram Charan sold his zamindari share aforesaid to Sheo Narayan, his son-in-law, reserving at the same time the said two bighas of nankar land for his use and for the use of his male descendants (aulad khas) without any power of alienation and free from any liability for the payment of rent subject to the condition that if at any time he had no descendant loft the land shall revert to the purchaser.
2. Ram Charan accordingly remained in possession of the said land during his lifetime. He was succeeded by his son Muazzam Ram, who died in the year 1918 without leaving any issue. The plaintiffs claim to be the nephews of Ram Charan and their contention is that the said two bighas of land had been permanently exempted from the sale and that the covenant restraining alienation and providing for the reversion of the property to the vendee in case Ram Charan had no male descendant left, was invalid. The defendants are the purchasers of the interest of Bindeshri and Rameshar, the nephews and legal representatives of Sheo Narain.
3. The Courts below were of opinion that the reservation made in the sale deed was absolute and a provision made for the reversion of the land to the vendee in case Ram Charan left no male descendant was void.
4. There is nothing, however, to prevent the vendor from reserving a certain interest in the property comprised in the sale for the benefit of himself and his lineal male descendants without any power of alienation subject to the reversion of that interest in case there were no male descendants left to enjoy the benefit of that reservation.
5. The intention of the parties to the deed evidently was to have a provision for the maintenance of the vendor and his lineal descendants who were not to be charged any rent for the occupation of the land so long as any such lineal descendants were in existence and to have the rights of the vendee otherwise unaffected. The reservation of such an interest does not offend, against the rule of perpetuity or involve the laying down of a rule of succession varying the ordinary law. On the other hand it merely amounts to the cutting of a certain interest out of the property sold for a limited purpose; and the vendee becomes fully entitled to the whole, when the interest so created dies out, as has happened in the present case. The plaintiffs are not the lineal descendants of Ram Charan and are not entitled to the benefit of the reservation made in the instrument of sale.
6. This appeal is therefore allowed and the claim of the plaintiffs dismissed with costs here and hitherto including fees in this Court on the higher scale.