1. This appeal is concerned with a small piece of land which was formerly in the ownership and possession of the late Pandit Ganga Ram. The plaintiff, Musamniat Sunder Kuar, in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, claimed to be entitled to the property in question. Her suit has been decreed by both the lower Courts in respect of portion of her claim, and the learned Judge of the Court before whom a second appeal was heard, dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred by the defendant, Pandit Baldeo Sahai, who claims to have established his right to the property. His claim is based upon the fact that a lease was executed by him on the 15th of April, 1906, in favour of Tirbeni Sahai and Raghu Nath Sahai for a term of 15 years at a rent of Rs. 6 per mensem. To this lease Musammat Sunder Kuar was a witness. Her thumb mark appears on the document and it has been established to the satisfaction of the lower appellate Court that not merely did she witness it but that she was aware of the contents of the document. It is contended that in view of these facts she cannot succeed in a suit to have her right to the property declared. Her title has been established by satisfactory evidence, but it is said that in view of the recitals in this document her right must be treated as having been transferred to Pandit Baldeo Sahai who is shown to have had no interest whatever in the property outside the transaction to which . we have referred. In this document it is stated that Baldeo Sahai had become the owner and possessor of the structures standing on the land and that Musammat Sunder Kuar had no concern with the said land. Whether or not the signature of Musammat Sunder Kuar was obtained to this document fraudulently appears to us to be quite immaterial. A title to land cannot be transferred by a mere recital in a lease. The recital in question is, no doubt, evidence which the Court must weigh when investigating a claim to the property; but if it stands by itself it is wholly insufficient so as to transfer the title in immovable property to a person in whose favour the recital has been made. In view of this it is clear that Baldeo Sahai has acquired no title by virtue of the recital. The Court below has held, and this is not a matter now before us, that Musammat Sunder Kuar cannot now set up her title as against the lessees. The doctrine of estoppel has been applied in their case, but it would' be carrying this doctrine too far to hold that its operation under the circumstances of this Case extended so far as to transfer the interest of this lady to a person who is found to have had no interest whatever in it previously. We think the decision of the learned Judge of this Court is right and dismiss this appeal with costs.