1. We are clearly of opinion that under Exhibit A the plaintiff's mother obtained an absolute right to the land and not merely the right to receive the produce thereof as the District Judge has found. The gift is of the land and the document merely proceeds to say that for the present the donor remains in possession as tenant and will pay the rent to the donee, but, if he does not do so, the donee may take possession of the land and let it to whomsoever she pleases. This admittedly happened. This first defendant did not pay the plaintiff's mother the landlord's share of the produce after his father's death and she took possession of the land and let it to others herself paying the cist.
2. In 1890, the plaintiffs' mother and the defendants jointly mortgaged this and other lands by way of conditional sale to D. Ranganaikulu, and in 1895 the same lands were re-conveyed to the defendants and the plaintiffs, the sons of the original donee of the land now claimed.
3. The plaintiffs say that they found and paid Rs. 70 towards the sum of Rs. 600 which was paid to D. Ranganaikulu to redeem the land, but this the defendants denied, and the 3rd issue was raised in the suit in consequence. If, as a matter of fact, the defendants after their father's death assented to the possession of the land being taken by the donee on their non-payment of the rent and also assented to the plaintiffs' joining after their mother's death in redeeming the land, they cannot now be permitted to contend that their father had no right to assign the land in the first instance.
4. This issue, therefore, is important.
5. The District Munsiff found it in the plaintiff's favour, but the District Judge has given no finding upon it.
6. We must, therefore, remand the case to the District Court for a finding on the third issue. The finding should be submitted within three weeks after the re opening of the Court.