1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration for a certain deed of gift dated 2nd of June 1905 as null and void after the death of one Musammat Rukmini Kunwar and for possession of the property. In the plaint it was alleged that the property in question belonged to one Harnath Singh, that upon his death it came into the possession of Musammat Rukmini Kunwar for widow's estate and that she in conjunction with Bandhan Singh and Musammat Surjan Kunwar had made the deed of gift in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. It was contended that the gift being made by a widow was invalid. The defence was that the property really belonged to Bandhan Singh and that it was within his power to make the deed of gift. The finding of the Court below is that the property was the property of Harnath Singh who was a separated Hindu and that the gift in question was made whilst the property was in the possession of his widow, Musammat Rukmini Kunwnr. On these findings the Court below gave the plaintiff a decree. In the present appeal it is urged that even assuming the facts as found by the Court below to be correct, the gift in question was made by the widow with the consent of the next reversioner, Bandhan Singh, and that accordingly on the authority of Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh 30 A. 1 (P.C.) : 3 M.L.T. 1 : 12 C.W.N. 74 : 9 Bom.L.R. 1348 : 6 C.L.J. 766 : 5 A.L.J. 1 : 35 I. A. 1 : 17 M.L.J. 605., the deed of gift is binding on the reversioners. The decision in that case has given rise to a good deal of discussion from time to time in this Court, but in a series of cases it has been held that the doctrine of the validity of alienations by Hindu widows with the consent of reversioners does not extend to deeds of gift [see Bakhtawar v. Bhagwana 5 Ind. Cas. 270 : 7 A.L.J. 121 : 32 A. 176. and Shaikh Abdulla v. Ram Lal 12 Ind. Cas. 601 : 8 A.L.J. 1318 : 34 A. 129. and unreported case, First Appeal No. 56 of 1911 decided on 23rd October 1912]. We are bound by these authorities. The result is that the appeal this Court dismissed with costs including in fails and is fees on the higher scale.