1. In this case the widow conveyed the whole of her estate to the next reversioner who upon the same day re-conveyed a portion of it to the widow's brother. The question is whether the conveyance by the widow is valid. It has been suggested in the argument before us that the conveyance to the widow's brother was benami for the widow herself and that therefore as to half or whatever was the proportion of the property so conveyed there was no real conveyance by the widow; consequently the conveyance to the next reversioner was in reality only a partial conveyance to the next reversioner and is on that ground invalid. That particular case, I think was not made in the court below, but however that be, the evidence which has been read to us does not prove to my mind that the conveyance was not really to the brother. It may be that it was expected that the widow would have the benefit of it, but the conveyance is suggested even by some of the witnesses on the appellant's side to have been for the benefit of the brother and not for the widow herself. Taking that view I take it to be established that what was transferred to Kamanna was the whole estate of the widow in consideration of his re-transferring part of it to her brother, and possibly in consideration also of a payment of Rs. 400, although the Subordinate Judge believes that Rs. 400 were not paid. Taking that to be so it is then contended the alienation is invalid for the reason that the conveyance to the reversioner was a conveyance for consideration. It seems to me that that contention is disposed of by the case in Chelliah Subbiah Sastri v P. Pattabhi-ramayya1 where in consideration of an undertaking by the next reversioner to reconvey a portion of the property the widow conveyed the whole estate to that reversioner. In that case the surrender or the alienation if it can be so called was held to be valid. To my mind there is no reason why that case should not be applied to this case. No doubt there was no actual money passed in that case while here it is open to us to find although the Subordinate Judge h is' not so found, that money did actually pass. That I think makes no difference. What we have to see is whether the whole es'tate was transferred to the reversioner. That has been done in this case by the widow to the next reversioner as was done in Chelliah Subbiah Sastri v. P. Pattabhiramayya (1908) 31 M.L.J. 446 That being so it seems to me that I must hold the transfer valid and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Abdur Rahim, J.
2. I am of the same opinion.