JUDGMENT : Burkitt, J.:— In our opinion this case is governed by the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal : [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., 157. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:— On the death of her husband, Lochan Singh leaving an only son, his widow, Musammat Raj Kunwar, in some way or other was recorded as the owner of half the property left by her husband and would seem to have obtained possession. The son was recorded as owner of the other half. The widow having thus got possession, has retained that possession for many years, The husband, we are informed, died more than 20 years before the institution of this suit. The possessory title she thus acquired is a title which is good against all the world except the true owner. In this litigation the true owner has not appeared.” The possessory title she thus acquired, Musammat Raj Kunwar, on the 23rd of March, 1898, granted by deed of gift to the plaintiff-respondent, Ram Bharose, and she completed his title by executing registered deed in his favour. This deed of gift, as ruled by this Court in the case of Phul Chand v. Lakkhu : [1903] A.W.N., 70, completed the title of the donee, and if it be true that the donor remained in possession, it must be held that her possession thenceforth was that of the donee. Subsequently, by a deed of sale, dated the 6th of June, 1902, Musammat Raj Kunwar purported to sell to two men, Pahalwan and Godhan, both of them being relatives of her own, but not her husband's, the possessory title of which she already made a gift to the plaintiff. 2. Thereupon these two vendees proceeded to out Musammat Raj Kunwar and her donee from possession of the property in dispute and took possession of it themselves. Hence this suit which has been brought by a guardian of the minor to recover-possession of the property. The lower appellate Court has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and we think that decree is right. Hence this suit which has been brought by a guardian of the minor to recover-possession of the property. The lower appellate Court has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and we think that decree is right. The possession, which Musammat Raj Kunwar had of the property was as we have already stated, a possession good against all the world but the true owner, and as held in the case of Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal : [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., 157 she was in possession of an estate which she might dispose of in any way as if she had an absolute indefeasible title to it. Having once disposed of the whole of that estate by gift to the plaintiff, it was no longer in her power in derogation of the gift to sell the same property to the defendants. That sale gave them no title whatever to possession of the property or to eject the donee. The law on this subject will, be found fully set forth the case cited above. For the above-reasons we think the decision of the Court below was right. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.