1. Ram Rikha Singh died in 1893, leaving him surviving his mother Ganga Kuowar and his widows, Ajudhia Kunwar and Hardei and the names of all the three women were entered on the Revenue Records. In February and September 1902, the three ladies transferred parts of the estate of Ram Rikha Singh to the defendant GhanshamSingh. In October 1905, Ganga Kunwar died. In the present suit, instituted in September 1909, the plaintiff, who claims to be one of the presumptive reversionary heirs of Ram Rikha Singh, prayed that the deeds of gift of February and September 1902 might be declared void and ineffectual so far as he is concerned and he also prayed for possession, of one sixth share in the property. The claim for possession has been dismissed and the correctness of that part of the decree is not challenged. The defendants pleaded in the Court below that if the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the deeds of gift were void and ineffectual as against him, that declaration should be limited by a proviso that he was entitled to a charge on the property to the extent of certain debts of Ram Rikha Singh, which had been paid by him. The Court below held that the question whether the defendant was entitled to a charge on the property in respect of the debts of Ram Rikha Singh paid by him was irrelevant in the present case and it gave the plaintiff a declaration that the two deeds of gift were void and ineffectual as against the person or persons on whom the property might devolve on the death of the ladie3. The defendant has appealed contending that the declaration in favour of the plaintiff should be limited in the way stated above and the plaintiff has filed a cross-objection with regard to the order made by the Court below as to costs. We may dispose of the cross-objection at once by saying, that inasmuch as the plaintiff's claim for possession of part of the property has been dismissed, he was fortunate in being allowed any costs. In support of the defendant's contention we have been referred to the case of Mahomed Shamsoolhuda v. Sewakram 23 W.R. 409 : 12 I.A. 7 : 14 B.L.R. 230. In that case a Hindu widow conveyed for value to a bona fids purchaser certain property which she had inherited from her husband. There was a mortgage on the property made by the last male owner which the purchaser paid off after taking possession of the property, in a suit brought by the son of a deceased daughter of the last male owner for a declaration that the widow had power to alienate the property for her life only, and that after her death he would be entitled to the property, it was held that the declaration should be limited by the proviso that he would be entitled to recover the property only on paying to the purchaser of the amount spent by him on redeeming the mortgage. That case differs materially from the present case for there the plaintiff was entitled to a vested remainder and it was possible for the Court to declare that the plaintiff or his heirs would be entitled to possession on the death of the widow. In the present case the plaintiff is only a presumptive reversionary heir who may never be entitled to possession of the property. The learned Advocate for the defendant appellant admitted that his client could probably not now maintain a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to a charge on the property in respect of the debts of Ram Rikha Singh paid by him; but he maintained that his client would be materially prejudiced if the deed 'f gift were declared to be void as against the plaintiff and the defendant were not at the same time declared to have a charge on the property on account of the payment by him of the debts of Ram Rikha Singh. It seems to us, as it seemed to the Court below, that the question wh3ther the defendant is entitled to a charge on the property and will be entitled to retain possession after the death of the ladies until he is reimbursed the sums expended by him, has nothing to do with the question whether the deeds of gift are valid, and that the suggested proviso in favour of the defendant will not really be a proviso to or in any way limit the declaration made in favour of the plaintiff but will be a substantive declaration of an entirely different right. If the defendant is hereafter held to be entitled to retain possession after the death of the widow, it will be not because he has any title to the property under the deeds of gift but because, being lawfully in possession under the deeds of gift during the life-time of the ladies, he discharged a debt which is binding on the reversionary heirs of Ram Rikha Singh. For these reasons, we think that the Court below is right in refusing to make any declaration in the present suit with regard to the right of the defendant to a charge on the property in respect of the debts of Ram Rikha Singh paid by him. The appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.