1. This Appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain zemindari and horse property. It appears that the property in dispute was originally the property of Narain Das, who died leaving him surviving Musammat Reoti, his widow, and Musammat Durga, his daughter. On the 3rd of December 1894, Musammat Reoti by a deed of gift, after reciting that she was in possession of her husband's estate, who had died without a son, and leaving Musammat Durga his daughter, made an absolute gift of the property in favour of Musammat Durga who was then a child aged about 5 years. Musammat Durga died in the year 1900, and the present suit was instituted on the 27th of August 1907. Apparently Musammat Reoti has remained all along in possession. It is said, however, that no question of limitation arises, because, the plaintiff Rup Ram, the husband of Musammat Durga, was a minor. The claim of Rup Ram is as heir to Musammat Durga, and it is contended that the effect of the deed of 3rd December 1894, was to give to Durga and after her death to the plaintiff the interests of Musammat Reoti; and that accordingly his suit for possession ought to be decreed. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the only effect of the deed of 3rd December 1894, was to accelerate the estate of Muixmmat Durga, in other words, that on the execution of that deed Musanmil Dnrga became entitled just as if Mussamat Reoti were then dead. The case of Bhopal Ram v. Lachma Kuar 11 A. 253, is relied on by the respondents. In that case a Hindu widow had made a gift to her daughter and a suit was brought by the reversioner claiming a declaration that the gift was not binding on him. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit giving as a reason that the daughter's estate was merely accelerated as the effect of the gift. It has been conceded that if a Hindu widow makes an alienation either by sale or gift in favour of a stranger, the sale or gift will hold good during the life-time of the widow. I confess that I feel some difficulty in. understanding why a gift in exactly the same words in favour of a daughter ought not also to hold good during the life-time of the widow. The case of relinquishment by a Hindu widow in favour of the reversioner for the time being stands on a somewhat different basis. There the relinquishment is in favour of a person who might, not necessarily be the reversioner at the time of the widow's death, i.e., when the succession opens up. However, it does appear to have been the opinion of this Court in more than one case that the effect of a gift in favour of a daughter by a Hindu widow is merely to accelerate the daughter's estate. In the present case the merits are entirely with the defendants. I doubt very much that the deed of gift was ever acted upon in any way. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
2. I fully concur with the opinion of my learned colleague. The trend of opinion in this Court seems to be that where a Hindu widow gives property inherited from her husband to a person, who, if she were to die at once, would take the property, whether with a life-estate or a full estate, her gift would only be tantamount to a relinquishment of her rights and acceleration of the rights of the person next entitled to possession after her. In the case of a male heir, the matter is beyond doubt and covered by authority. The case of Bhopal Ram v. Lachma Kuar 11 A. 253, which was the case of a gift to a daughter, was decided on the same principle. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
3. The order of the 'Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.