Judgment Kamla Sahai, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration that a deed of surrender executed by one Jasoda Kuer on the 18th July, 1944, in favour of Ramgulam Singh (original defendant No. I, who has since died) is illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs, and for confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, recovery of possession. 2. The 3rd Additional District Judge of Patna, who disposed of the appeal in the Court below, has given a genealogy of the family. It shows that Basti Singh had four sons, viz., Kashi, Nemchand, Kanhai and Jeolal. Ramgulam (original defendant No 1) was the grandson of Nemchand. According to the plaintiffs, Thakuri and Gokhul were two sons of Kanhai, and the two plaintiffs are grandsons of Gokuls son, Ranglal. Admittedly, Thakuri had three sons named Imrit, Jawahir and Parmeshwar. It is also admitted that Jawahir died earlier, leaving him surviving a widow named Jasoda Kuer, and that Parmeshwar died in 1937. The plaintiffs case further is that the three brothers were joint in status so that, on Jawahirs death, Jasoda was entitled only to maintenance. On the other hand the defendants case is that Gokul was not a son of Kanhai but was a son of Jeolal, the fourth son of Basti Singh, with the result that the appellants are not the grandsons of Kanhais son, Gokul, but are the grandsons of Jeolals son, Gokul. Their case further is that the three brothers, (SIC) Jawahir and Parmeshwar, were separate in status, and that Jasoda succeeded to Jawahir, and she came into possession of his properties as a Hindu widow. When Parmash-war died, the properties were also divided half and half Set ween Imrit and Jasoda. 3. I may further mention that the plaintiffs case is that the deed of surrender executed by Jasoda in favour of Ramgulam on the I8th July. 1944, is illegal and inoperative, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the properties of the three sons of Thakuri, the son of Kanhai, because all those properties have been gifted to them by Imrit who was the last male holder of that branch of the family. 1944, is illegal and inoperative, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to all the properties of the three sons of Thakuri, the son of Kanhai, because all those properties have been gifted to them by Imrit who was the last male holder of that branch of the family. The defendants case is that the deed of surrender was valid, that Ramgulam was put in possession of all the properties held by Jasoda on the 18th July, 1944, and that the plaintiffs have no right or title to those properties. 4. The Courts below have given concurrent findings. I may only summarise the findings of the learned Additional District Judge. Re has held: 1. That, as alleged by the defendants, Gokul was a son of Jesolal and not that of Kanhai. 2. That, as alleged by the defendants, Jawahir died in a state of separation from his brothers, Imrit and Parmeshwar. 3. That Jasuda Kuer had a widows estate in her husbands properties. 4. That the deed of surrender (exhibit F) was invalid as such; but it was valid as a deed of gift 5. In view of the finding that Goknl uus a MHI of Jeolal, the plaintiffs were not the next reversiouurs of Jawahir either at the time of execution of the deed (exhibit F) by Jasoda or at the time of her death in 1956, It has, however, been argued by Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad that the deed (exhibit F) was invalid as a deed of surrender as well as a deed of gift. It is well established that a surrender: by a Hindu widow can only be valid if (1) it is a surrender of her entire interest in the whole estate which she holds as a Hindu widow, and (2) it is in favour of the then nearest reversioner or the then entire body of nearest reversioners. 6. The admitted position in this case is that Ramgulam was not the nearest reversioner on the 18th July, 1944, when Jasoda Kuer executed the deed (exhibit F). It follows, therefore, that the deed of surrender is, as asserted by Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, not a valid surrender. 7. I have read the document. 6. The admitted position in this case is that Ramgulam was not the nearest reversioner on the 18th July, 1944, when Jasoda Kuer executed the deed (exhibit F). It follows, therefore, that the deed of surrender is, as asserted by Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, not a valid surrender. 7. I have read the document. The recitals in it show that, according to Jasoda Kuer Ramgulam was the nearest reversioner on the date of its execution, that he had kept her pleased with him on account of his loyalty and faithfulness, and that she, therefore, wanted to give the entire properties to him. The word gift is not used in the document; but the word surrender* is used in its place. In spite of the use of the word surrender, it seems to me to be quite clear that what Jasoda Kuer wished to do was to make a gift of the entire properties, held by her to Ramgulam. As it was a deed of gift, the nearest reversioner, on the date when succession opened, could certainly challenge its validity beyond the lifetime of Jasoda Kuer. He could have repudiated the gift, and he could have claimed the properties for himself. The question, therefore, that arises is when succession opened, and who the next reversioner on that date was? 8. Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad has strenuously argued that that succession opened on the 18th July, 1944, when Jasoda Kuer purported to make a gift of the entire properties held by her to Ramgulam. His contention is that Jasoda must be held to have completely effaced herself on that date, and thereby to have brought about her civil death. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument. Firstly, the surrender is either valid or invalid. It cannot be said that it is invalid but it should be accepted in part, i.e , only to the effect that the widow, Jasoda Kuer, committed her civil death. Secondly, I cannot accept it as a sound principle that, simply because a Hindu widow makes a gift of her entire properties to a person other than the next reversioner, she must be held to have made a surrender of her entire interest in the whole estate. Mr. Prasad has relied, in support of his argument, upon Mt. Akhai V/s. Arjun Koeri, AIR 1952 Pal 67. Mr. Prasad has relied, in support of his argument, upon Mt. Akhai V/s. Arjun Koeri, AIR 1952 Pal 67. tn that case, Ramprasad Kueri died leaving him surviving his widow, Musammat Kubri, and a daughter. Musammat Akhaji. During his lifetime, he user! to keep Aliar Koeri, husband of Akhaji, with him as ghardamad. Kubri came into possession of her husbands estate on his death. After Kubris death, there was a dispute between Aliar Koer on one side and Mahabir, the next reversioner of Ramprasad, on the other. Akhaji disclaimed any interest in the properties left by her father, and allowed her husband, Aliar, to fight with Mahabir. There was an arbitration, and the properties were divided between Aliar and Mahabir. All that their Lordships have held in that case is that Akhaji surrendered her into interest in her fathers estate because she disclaimed all interest in it, and that the entire estate vested in Mahabir on such surrender. They have further held that the compromise between Mahabir on one side and Aliai on the other was valid. I do not find anything in that decision to suggest that, if a widow makes a gift of properties held by her as a Hindu widows estate, she must be held to have committed her civil death by surrender. 5. Another case, which Mr. Prasad has relied upon, is that of Natvarlal Punjabhai V/s. Dadubhai Manubhai, AIR 1954 SC 61 , This case also does not support learned counsels argument. 6. It is perfectly clear that Jasode cannot be held to have committed her civil death making a gift of her interest in the whole estate on the 18th July, 1944, to Ramgulam who was not then the nearest reversion. The succession, therefore, did not upon on the 18th July, 1944: it rather opened on her death in 1956. The Courts below have held that Ramgulam was the nearest reversioner on the death of Jasoda. limit died in 1945. He did not remain alive until the elate of death of Jasoda. Hence, he did not acquire any title to Jasodas properties. The Courts below have held that Ramgulam was the nearest reversioner on the death of Jasoda. limit died in 1945. He did not remain alive until the elate of death of Jasoda. Hence, he did not acquire any title to Jasodas properties. That being so, the deed of gift executed by him in 1944 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties held by Jasoda as a Hindu widow cannot be held to have passed any title, In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the decisions of the two Courts below are correct. 7. No interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.