1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Raghunath Kunwari, respondent, for possession of certain property which originally belonged to her father, Ram Autar Sahi, who died in 1832, leaving him surviving Musammat Genda Kunwari, his widow, Musammat Sheonath Kunwari and Raghunath Kunwari, his daughters, and a third daughter, Jailakh Kunwari, whose son is Ram Saran Pal alias Chillupal. Jailakh Kunwari is dead and so are Genda Kunwari and Sheonath Kunwari. On the 6th of April 1890, Musammat Genda Kunwari executed a deed of gift in favour of Musammat Sheonath Kunwari and to that deed of gift Raghunath Kunwari, the plaintiff, and Ram Saran Pal, the son of Jailakh Kunwari, were parties as executants so that these persons consented to the gift made by Genda Kunwari, who was the only person entitled at that time to the estate of her husband, Ram Autar Sahi. Genda Kunwari died in 1897, and Sheonath Kunwari died on the 20th of April 1902. Jhanakraj Kunwari, the mother-in-law of Sheonath Kunwari, got her own name recorded in respect of the property obtained by Sheonath Kunwari under the deed of gift referred to above. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by Raghunath Kunwari. The appellant, Sarnam Kunwari, is the daughter of Jhanakraj Kunwari. The lattermade a gift in her favour. The appellant, Shimbhu; Paishad, is a transferee from Jhanakraj Kunwari and Sarnam Kunwari. The Court below decreed the claim of Raghunath Kunwari. Against this decree, Sarnam Kunwari has preferred this appeal.
2. It is clear that as against her, Raghunath Kunwari was entitled to the decree passed in her favour. Genda Kunwari was, as we have said above, the only person entitled to the estate of Ram Autar Sahi during her life-time as his widow. She had a life-interest only and, therefore, under the gift made, by her the donee acquired only her life-interest. That interest determined upon her death which took place in the year 1897. So that upon her death, the persons entitled to the estate of Ram Autar Sahi were Sheonath Kunwari and her sister Raghunath Kunwari, the plaintiff. Sheonath Kunwari being dead, Raghunath Kunwari is the only person entitled to the estate as the surviving daughter of Ram Autar Sahi. Even if it be assumed that Sheonath Kunwari acquired an interest in the estate otherwise than as heir of her father, that is, under the gift to which we have referred, the person who succeeded to her interests upon her death was her husband, and upon the death of her husband, they passed to the husband's mother, Jhanakraj Kunwari, and not to Sarnam Kunwari, who is the sister of her husband. Jhanakraj Kunwari is now dead and the interest, which Sheonath Kunwari might have had in this property under a right independent of her right of inheritance to her father, passed to the heirs of her husband. That heir was Bindeshri Baksh Pal, who brought the suit out of which First Appeal No. 401 of 1910 has arisen. In any case, Sarnam Kunwari has no interest whatever. It is contended on her behalf that as Raghunath Kunwari assented to the gift made by Genda Kunwari in favour of Sheonath Kunwari, she is estopped from questioning the validity of the gift. It has been held in this Court that a gift made by a widow with the consent of the reversioner is not a valid gift and cannot enure beyond the life-time of the widow. Therefore, after the death of Genda Kunwari, the gift made by her came to an end. Sarnam Kunwari not having derived title, as we have shown above, from Sheonath Kunwari, it is not open to her to set up a plea of estoppel. She, by reason of Raghunath Kunwari's act did not in any way alter her own position, The plea of estoppel is, therefore, wholly without force. As Sarnam Kunwari has no title, the transferee from her, namely, Shimbhu Pershad, has no title whatever. In her written statement, she does not set up the jus tertii of Bindeshri Baksh Pal, but even if she can be allowed to do so now, the heirs of Bindeshri Baksh Pal having compromised the case with Raghunath Kunwari, no plea of jus tertii could prevail. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.