1. It is argued that the 2nd item which was bought by 3rd defendant belonged to the widow as her stridhanam, and reliance is placed on the language used in Exhibit V. In our opinion the question as to the nature of the widow's estate cannot be decided with reference to the words used in the instrument of conveyance. It appears that she gave in exchange some property of her husband in which, whatever her impression may have been, she had only a widow's estate, receiving from her husband's brother, the plaintiff's father, the property now in question. The property taken by the plaintiff's father was taken by him absolutely. Assuming that the transaction was a proper one, binding the reversionary heirs, we think that as it is clear that they could not recover the property given up to the plaintiff's father, so the widow held the property taken by her as part of her widow's estate in which the reversioners had the rights which they would have had in the original property.
2. It is then contended that the widow had, by the arrangement of 1860 with the plaintiff's father, a stridhanam estate in the property which she then took, and it is sought to support this contention by arguing that there was an acceleration in favour of the text reversioner and a gift by him of a moiety of the property as her stridhanam. This contention is wholly untenable. It is clear that there was no renunciation on the part of the widow at all. She simply transferred one-fourth out of three-fourths which belonged to her husband, and in consideration thereof the reversioner purported to enlarge, her estate in the remaining moiety. As against the actual reversionary heir, who is the plaintiff; this enlargement is inoperative.
3 This appeal is dismissed with costs.