1. The finding is that the transfers made by the widow in favour of the appellant were not made, as alleged by him, for purposes binding upon the respondent, a reversioner. It was, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that, notwithstanding the above finding, the alienations should be upheld on the principle of Hindu law recognised by the Judicial Committee in Behari Lall v. Madholal Ahir Jaya Wall I.L.R. 19 Cal. 236 since the intention of the widow in transferring the lands in dispute was to benefit the appellant and the transfers were made with the assent of the person who was the nearest reversioner then. Now to admit of the doctrine of law laid down in the case cited being applied, it should be shown that the widow's estate was completely withdrawn, so that the whole estate should get vested at once in the grantee as effectually as if the widow had renounced in favour of the nearest reversioner and the latter as full owner had conveyed the property to the grantee. But that is not the case here, as one of the items of the property in question purports to have been transferred by way of mortgage only. Even if the transaction were really a mortgage, the widow would be interested as the holder of the equity of redemption. Moreover, both the Courts find that the debt, on account of which the mortgage is said to have been executed, was never due. Consequently the land comprised in the instrument of mortgage must be taken to be her property still. Her life-estate not being at an end, the foundation for the application of the rule of law relied upon on behalf of the appellant fails and the second appeal is dismissed with costs.