(1.) The appellants before me are defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit which was one for a declaration that a surrender by defendant' 1, a Hindu widow, in favour of one Satyam as the then nearest reversioner who afterwards died, and a gift deed by Satyam to defendants 2 and 3 consequently are invalid against the plaintiff and the other reversioners to the estate of defendant 1's husband. The surrender deed (Ex. D. 1, dated 27th July 1937), the gift deed by Satyam (Ex. D-2 dated 31st July 1937), under which the appellants claim the property in their possession and another deed (Ex. D-3 dated 30th July 1937), a deed of sale by Satyam to a stranger of a small bit of the whole property surrendered for a small sum of Rs. 20 have been found by the lower appellate Court which confirmed the decree of the trial Court in the plaintiff's favour to be parts and parcels of a single and indivisible scheme by which defendant 1'a nominees, defendants 2 and 3, were to stand benefited. The trial Court's finding to use its language is that "the surrender is not true and bona fide", and that therefore the gift in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is of no avail.
(2.) It is argued for the appellants by their learned counsel that they are Satyam's brother's widow and daughter as well as defendant 1's brother's daughter and daughter's daughter, and that their relationship to defendant 1, ought not, in view of their relationship also to Satyam himself, to prejudice them. The relationship may indeed be dual; but the finding of the Court below against the validity of the surrender and therefore of the later gift does not proceed on the sole basis of the appellants' relationship to defendant 1, as such. It rests on other facts too, and the finding cannot be disturbed on the ground urged.
(3.) It is next contended for the appellants that the lower appellate Court is wrong in applying the law as it has done to the facts found by it This is what the lower appellate Court has said in para. 15 of its judgment;