JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, BANERJI, JJ. The suit out of which his appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff, who is the President of the Arya Samaj at Agra, for possession of two houses and eight shops, which originally belonged to one Hulas Rai. On the 30th of May, 1903, Hulas Rai executed a document by which he made a gift of the eight shops in favour of “Sri Thakurji of the thakurdwara, called after his name, situated in Kasba Puranpur.” Subsequently he became a convert to the doctrines of the Arya Samaj. On the 4th of February, 1905, be made a gift of two houses and the shops to the Samaj. He died on the 11th of December, 1905, and after his death disputes arose about the possession of the property. Finally the plaintiff brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal. It has been found that at the time of the execution of the document of the 30th May, 1903, no thakurdwara was in existence, and of course there was no Thakurji in the thakurdwara. It is common ground that during his life-time Hulas Rai did not build any thakurdwara, or temple, though, no doubt, he was building houses with the intention of converting one of them into a thakurdwara, prior to his conversion. The question is, whether, under these circumstances, the gift which he made on the 30th of May, 1903, can operate as a complete and effectual gift of the eight shops and can prevail as against the subsequent document of the 4th of February, 1905. If the dedication was complete, it is clear that he could not revoke it and make another gift. We are of opinion that in the present instance the first dedication was not valid. It was not a dedication to any particular deity which was subsequently to be installed in a temple. It was a dedication to the Thakurji in his thakurdwara without mentioning the Thakurji to whom the property was dedicated. As we have already said, there was no Thakurji and no thakurdwara, therefore the dedication was bad on the ground of uncertainty. This case is distinguishable from the case of Bhupati Nath Smrithitirtha v. Ram Lal Moitra,(1909) I.L.R., 37 Calc., 128, Mohar Singh v. Het Singh(1910) I.L.R., 32 All., 337 and Chatarbhuj v. Chatarjit, (1910) I.L.R., 33 All., 253. As we have already said, there was no Thakurji and no thakurdwara, therefore the dedication was bad on the ground of uncertainty. This case is distinguishable from the case of Bhupati Nath Smrithitirtha v. Ram Lal Moitra,(1909) I.L.R., 37 Calc., 128, Mohar Singh v. Het Singh(1910) I.L.R., 32 All., 337 and Chatarbhuj v. Chatarjit, (1910) I.L.R., 33 All., 253. In all those cases the gift was in favour of the deity named in the deed of dedication and it was held that although the image of the deity had not been installed and consecrated, the endowment was nevertheless valid. We dismiss the appeal with costs.