1. The original plaintiff in this suit was one Rohan Singh. He came before the Court as being the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Raghunath Singh. This Raghunath Singh had died leaving a widow Mt. Kaunsilla who is still alive. On 3rd July 1914 Kaunsilla gifted the whole of the property which had devolved on her from her husband to her two daughters Nachkande and Bitoli and their respective husbands Hari Singh and Badal Singh. Subsequently both the daughters died and Rohan Singh as the nearest reversionary heir to the estate of Raghunath Singh claimed that on the death of the two daughters the property had devolved upon himself. This was his case, and in order to establish his claim on the death of the daughters he denied that their respective husbands were donees from Mt. Kaunsilla. He made further an alternative claim that, if possession over any portion of the property could not be given to him during the lifetime of Kaunsilla, the gift might be declared to be null and void and ineffectual on her death.
2. The Courts below have found that the deed of gift was executed in favour of both of the daughters of Kaunsilla and of their respective husbands. This being so, the estate could not be claimed by the nearest reversioner on the death of the two ladies. The two other donees had to be considered. As they were strangers there was no question of acceleration, and the plaintiff was clearly driven by this finding to his second relief, namely, a declaration that the gift should be held to be null and void on the death of Kaunsilla. The suit having been dismissed on both grounds, Rohan Singh died. His two sons Har Lal Singh and Kunwar Singh applied that their names should be placed on the record as the heirs of their father. The application was resisted and an order was passed by the Subordinate Judge admitting the names of the two sons of Rohan Singh as being their father's heirs. When deciding the appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge held that the sons of Rohan Singh could challenge the decision as to the possession of the property which their father had claimed as a right, devolving on him on the death of Nachkande and Bitoli, but that they could not claim the alternative relief because their position in the suit is only that of being heirs of Rohan Singh and not that of being reversioners of Raghunath Singh.
3. I have been asked to consider that this is a narrow view to take of the case and that although the two sons of Rohan Singh omitted to make any reference in their application for substitution of names to their claim to be the reversionary heirs of Raghunath Singh, they should still be treated as reversionary heirs, and be allowed to continue the appeal as representing the body of reversioners. It was held long ago by Mahmood, J., in a judgment which is quoted in a Full Bench decision in the case of Bhagiuanta v. Sukhi  22 All. 33, that there is no authority for the proposition that a reversionary right under the Hindu law is a kind of heritable estate which descends from father to son. It appears to me that these two persons who are maintaining this appeal only as their father's heirs cannot be heard to say that they are also continuing the appeal as the reversionary heirs of Raghunath Singh, which may or may not be the case, and is a question which is up to the present undetermined.
4. Even if they had this right, it is open to question whether their claim could be admitted in view of the fact that it is entirely opposed to the case set up by their father, and the finding of the Courts below that this gift by Kaunsilla was a valid gift in lieu of dower in favour of her daughters. It may be that on the death of Kaunsilla the nearest reversioners of that time may if so advised re-agitate this question, but I am not prepared to hold in this appeal that a decree can be passed in favour of these two persons who come forward as the sons of Rohan Singh declaring the gift to be null and void as against the reversioners of Raghunath Singh.
5. For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including costs in this Court on the higher scale.