1. This second appeal arises from a suit for possession of certain zemindari property and mesne profits. The property was the personal property of one Sita Ram, whose widow, Mt. Dilaro, in 1914, executed what is called a deed of gift in favour of three persons: namely Raghunandan, the husband of the present plaintiff Ram Tawakkul, the father of Defendant No. 2; and Udit Narain, Defendant No. 1. These three donees were all direct descendants of the cousin of Sita Ram, and it appears that they held possession of the property allotted to them until 1921, when M.t Dilaro died, and disputes broke out among the donees during mutation proceedings. Some sort of settlement was made between them in December 1922, by which the property was allotted among the three. According to the plaint in the present suit Udit Narain dispossessed the plaintiff who is the widow of Raghunandan one of the donees.
2. She based her claim on the assertion that the deed of 1914 was a surrender by Mt. Dilaro of the estate in favour of the reversionary It is admitted that a Hindu widow can only surrender her husband's estate to the nearest reversionary heir, and it has been found as a fast by the lower appellate Court that the nearest reversionary heir at the time was not any of the donees but Radhe the father of Ram Tawakkul. Both the Courts below have, therefore, found that there was no surrender of the estate by Mt. Dilaro and no acceleration of the estate. An attempt has been made in this Court to argue that as Radhe was the father of Ram Tawakkul it must be presumed that he consented to the surrender in favour of Ram Tawakkul. There is, however, no evidence that Radhe consented. It is not the case set up in the plaint, in which Radhe is ignored altogether and the donees are spoken of as if they were the nearest reversioners. In fact this plea is taken for the first time in this Court, evidently as the result of the finding that Radhe was the nearest reversioner. I do not think that any such presumption could be made by the Court. Moreover it would further be necessary to presume that Radhe and Ram Tawakkul had consented to the surrender in favour of the other two donees I think that the circumstances justify the findings of the lower Courts that what Mt. Dilaro surrendered was not the full estate of her husband, but only her own limited estate.
3. The plaintiff has also relied to some extent on a compromise of 1922 in the mutation proceedings The lower Courts have refused to regard this as a family settlement on the ground that it purports to transfer an interest in immovable property valued at more that Rs. 100, and that it, therefore, required registration. This finding is challenged in second appeal and a reference has been made to the decision of a Bench of this Court reported in Baldeo Singh v. Udal Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 248. It is argued that the compromise did not in itself purport to convey any title but merely to embody terms arrived at in an oral compromise outside the Court. There is, however, no evidence of any such oral compromise, and if there was and its terms were reduced to writing I fail to see that the Courts would be justified in ignoring the written compromise and falling back on the oral one. In the case of Baldeo Singh v. Udal Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 248. Mr. Justice Kanhaiya Lal certainly held that if the written compromise did not by itself purport to create, assign or declare any rights in immovable property it would not require to be registered. In the present case, however, the written compromise does allot the various shares among the donees, and if as I have held the deed of 1914 conveyed no title to the plaintiff or her predecessor beyond a share in the limited interest of Mt. Dilaro, it is difficult to see what the plaintiff bases her title on unless it is this compromise. To put the matter in a somewhat different form, on Mt. Dilaro's death the present plaintiff lost all the interest that she had in the estate, and could have no standing as a party in a family settlement which, as is admitted on behalf of the appellant, must be a decision of doubtful rights.
4. I should add that the respondent has pointed out in argument a further objection to regarding the deed of 1914 as a surrender of the full estate. It has been found, by the lower appellate Court that the whole of Sita Ram's estate was not gifted to the donees by Mt. Dilaro. It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden A. 1. Rule 1918 P. C. 196 that a surrender by a Hindu widow in favour of the nearest reversioner must be not only absolute but complete, and in the present case the so-called surrender was not complete.
5. The result of these findings is that the appeal fails and it is dismissed with coats.