JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Defendants are the Appellants. The admitted facts are that D. Gurub Patra died leaving his son, Budhia and three daughters, Sombari (deceased) Achiamma (Plaintiff No. 1) and Venkamma (Defendant No. 1) and his widow, Gangamma. Budhia predeceased his mother Gangamma without leaving any issue. The widow of Budhia remarried for the second time 'soon after the death Budhia. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of Sombari who also predeceased her mother Gangamma. 2. On 30-8-1954 Gangamma executed a registered deed of gift (ext. A) in favour of her daughter Venkamma (Defendant No. 1) and Mangulu Patra (Defendant No. 2), the husband of Defendant No. 1. On 18-9-1954 she cancelled the deed of gift, ext. A by a deed of cancellation (ext. 2). Thereafter on 30-10-1954 she conveyed portions of the suit property by three separate deeds of gift, exts., 3, 5 and 4, to Defendant No. 1, Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 respectively. Later on she filed Title Suit (No. 58 of 1955) (plaint marked ext. 6), against Defendants 1 and 2 for cancellation of the deed of gift, ext., A. She withdrew that suit and thereafter filed a suit in forms pauperis (M.J.C. 44 of 1957) against her daughters and Defendant No. 2 for recovery of the properties on the allegation that the deeds of gift were fraudulently obtained from her. But during the enquiry of her pauperism she died in 1957. Thereafter the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the present suit, their case being that the Defendants are in forcible possession of the entire suit-properties and are not giving them their rightful share. They contend that the properties belong to Gurub Patra, the deed of gift executed by Gangamma was invalid and the suit-properties, be partitioned in three equal shares and the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 be allotted two-thirds share of the same. Their alternative case is one for recovery of the property on the basis of the gift-deed executed in their favour by Gangamma on 30-10-1954. 3. The case of the Defendants is that the suit-property is self-acquisition out of the Stridhan property of Gangamma and that the deed of gift, ext. A executed by Gangamma on 30-8-1954 in their favour is genuine and is binding upon the Plaintiffs. The deed of cancellation (ext. 3. The case of the Defendants is that the suit-property is self-acquisition out of the Stridhan property of Gangamma and that the deed of gift, ext. A executed by Gangamma on 30-8-1954 in their favour is genuine and is binding upon the Plaintiffs. The deed of cancellation (ext. 2) dated 18-9-1954 and the subsequent gifts made by Gangamma on 30-10-1954 in favour of Plaintiff 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 1 are illegal and inoperative against the Defendants and do not confer any right, title or interest on the Plaintiffs. 4. The suit-properties are comprised on seven items. items No. 7 is a house-property and the rest are agricultural holdings. 5. The learned trial Court held that excepting items 5 and 6 the rest of the properties were the ancestral property of Gurab Patra and items 5 and 6 were the self-acquisitions of Gangamma out of her Stridhan property. The deed of gift, ext. A executed by Gangamma on 30-8-1954 in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 was valid only in so far as it reflects to items 5 and 6. In respect of the rest of the items she had absolutely no right to make any gift beyond her lifetime as she was only a limited owner in respect of those items, viz., 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 and as such the gift in respect of these items made in favour of the first Plaintiff and the mother of the second Plaintiff cannot be sustained since by the date of the suit Gangamma was dead. He passed a preliminary decree for partition directing the 1st Plaintiff and the first Defendant, that is, the two daughters of Gangamma, were each entitled to half share in items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. With reflect to items 5 and 6 he dismissed the suit. He held that Plaintiff no, 2 was not entitled to any share being a sister's son in the presence of the sisters (Plaintiff no, 1 and Defendant No. 1) of Budhia the last full owner. 6. On appeal by the Plaintiff, the appellate Court held that items 5 and 6 were not the Stridhan property of Gangamma and therefore she could not gift them away- Ext. A was obtained by the misrepresentation and fraud and was duly nullified by the deed of cancellation, ext. 2. 6. On appeal by the Plaintiff, the appellate Court held that items 5 and 6 were not the Stridhan property of Gangamma and therefore she could not gift them away- Ext. A was obtained by the misrepresentation and fraud and was duly nullified by the deed of cancellation, ext. 2. He decreed the Plaintiffs' suit in toto, holding that the Plaintiffs have acquired full right, title and interest in respect of the properties conveyed to them under the deeds of gift, exts. 4 and 5 and that they are entitled to recover possession of the same from the Defendants. It is against this reversing judgment of the learned appellate Court, Defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal. 7. At the first appellate stage the sale-deeds, exts. 9 and 10, dated 27-9-1937 and 4-8-1939 were admitted as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 on behalf of the Plaintiffs to show that the consideration for those sale deeds executed in favour of Gangamma came from the source of her husband and accordingly the properties under those sale-deeds which form items 5 and 6 of the suit-properties, were not the Stridhan property of Gangamma, but were only a part of her husband's estate. These documents were produced to show that the finding of the trial Court in respect of items 5 and 6 was incorrect. On examination of the oral evidence and several other documents including exts. 9 and 10, the appellate Court came to a clear finding that items 5 and 6 were not acquired out of the Stridhan property of Gangamma, but were only a part of the family property of Guruba and Budhia. This finding cannot be challenged in this appeal and is therefore conclusive. Thus, the position that emerges is that all the seven items of the suit property are the family property or Gurub. The finding of the appellate Court that the gift-deed, ext. A dated 308-1954, executed by Gangamma in favour of Defendants 1 and 2, was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, cannot be challenged ill view of positive evidence in support of such a finding. The recital in ext. A shows that Gangamma retained her right" title and interest in the property gifted and the only made over possession of the same for the enjoyment .of the Defendants during her lifetime. Thus, by ext. A she did not completely divest herself of the property. The recital in ext. A shows that Gangamma retained her right" title and interest in the property gifted and the only made over possession of the same for the enjoyment .of the Defendants during her lifetime. Thus, by ext. A she did not completely divest herself of the property. In this connection, it is significant to note that the deed of cancellation, ext. 2 was executed only a few days after the deed of gift by Gangamma and shortly there after she also filed a Title Suit (No. 58/55) for cancellation of ext. A. Though this suit was withdrawn by her, she filed another suit in forma pauperis and during the pendency of the enquiry she died. Though it, is the plea of the Defendants that the deed of cancellation was not obtained under undue influence and duress, they have failed to prove the same by evidence. Admittedly Gangamma was an illiterate lady and the burden was heavy on the donees to prove that she was fully aware of the contents of the gift-deed and had proper and independent advice before she executed the same. Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned appellate Court rightly refused to uphold the deed of gift, ext. A and held that it was nullified by ext. 2. In effect, therefore, the gift made by Gangamma in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 has failed. 8. Next we come back to the three registered deeds of gift, exts. 3, 4 and 5 executed by Gangamma on 30-10-1954 in favour of both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. That these three deeds of gift were duly executed by Gangamma is also admitted by Plaintiff No. 1 (p.w.6.). Defendant No. 1, the other daughter of Gangamma though alive, has not come forward to prove the contrary. Thus the three gift-deeds are not assailed.. 9. As to the possession of the properties the lower appellate Court has not given any specific finding though there is some evidence to show that Gangamma was in possession of the properties until her death. 10. These gifts were made in 1954, that is, prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. There cannot be any dispute that Gangamma was merely a limited owner on the date she executed the gift., deeds. 10. These gifts were made in 1954, that is, prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. There cannot be any dispute that Gangamma was merely a limited owner on the date she executed the gift., deeds. By these gifts, her right in the property was extinguished and the title vested in the donees, but this right-title and interest of the donees cannot be better than what the donor, Gangamma had in the properties or the date of the gifts. In other words the donees received only a limited interest which would incur during the life-time of the widow and thereafter the property is to revert to the heirs of the last full-owner i.e. the reversioners. It was contended that by virtue of section It of the Hindu succession Act Gangamma being in possession become full owner of the property though she, had already made three valid gifts on 30-10-1954. But Section 14 does not in any way confer a title on a female Hindu where she does not in fact possess any vestings or a title. Thus even it be held on evidence though in fact the evidences of an inclusive nature that Gangamma was still in possession of the property in spite of the gift-deeds, that will not make, the property her own as she had already transferred her right by way of these gifts. Her possession, if any shall be that of a limited owner and on her death, the property will revert to the reversioners of the last male owner. The conception of a reversioner has not been wiped out by the Hindu Succession Act, but it still remains in respect of such properties possessed by a female Hindu. If Gangamma would have been in possession of the property on the basis of any right when the Act came into force, then it would be her property and on bel' death it would devolve to her heirs in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. But that is not the case here. It is obvious that Gangamma had no right to the property when the Act came into force. Before the Act came into force, the last full-owner, viz., Budhia was already dead. The suit-property shall therefore devolve on his heirs. 11. In the order of succession, the sisters have a right of precedence over the sister's son. It is obvious that Gangamma had no right to the property when the Act came into force. Before the Act came into force, the last full-owner, viz., Budhia was already dead. The suit-property shall therefore devolve on his heirs. 11. In the order of succession, the sisters have a right of precedence over the sister's son. Thus a sister's son cannot claim inheritance in the presence of the sister. That priority of the sister in the order of succession is still maintained in the new Act. Thus the Plaintiff No. 1 and the Defendant No. 1 the two sister heirs of Budhia are only the two persons who are entitled to the properties of Budhia to the exclusion of Plaintiff No. 2. 12, The learned appellate Court upheld the three gifts executed by Gangamma in favour of both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 on the ground that it amount to surrender of the estate in favour of the nearest reversioners and as the gift in favour of Plaintiff no 2 had the tacit approval of all the three sisters, the same cannot be challenged and the Plaintiffs have thus acquired right, title and interest in respect of the properties covered under exts. 5 and 4. This approach to the case is erroneous. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that any such surrender was made by Gangamma. It is well-settled that where a surrender is made in favour of the next heir along with a remote reversioner and the widow purports to relinquish the estate in order that it may vest in both of them, the surrender not being a totality of the interest of the widow in favour of the next heir cannot operate as a valid surrender. 13. In a case reported in Mummareddi Nagi Reddi and Others Vs. Pitti Durairaja Naidu and Others, it was held that the basis of the doctrine of surrender or relinquishment by the widow of her interest in the husband's estate which has the effect of accelerating the inheritance in favour of the next heir of her husband, is the effacement of the widow's estate and not the ex facie transfer by which such effacement is brought about. The result merely is that the next heir of the husband steps into the succession in the widow's place. 14. As already seen, the transactions, exts. The result merely is that the next heir of the husband steps into the succession in the widow's place. 14. As already seen, the transactions, exts. 3, 4 and 5 though may be upheld as good gifts, cannot be treated as surrender of the limited estate in favour of the reversioners, both next and remote. In view of this position, Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 will be entitled to share half and half in the suit-property. Plaintiff No. 2 being a sister's son of Budhia has no right to inherit the property left by Budhia in the presence of his sisters, the Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1. The order of the appellate Court is accordingly modified to the extent that the Plaintiff DO. 1 and the first Defendant shall each be entitled to a half share in an the seven items of the properties, and if they fail to make any amicable partition as between them, it is open to the parties to apply to the Court for appointment of a commissioner to get the suit-properties partitioned. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and in view of the nature of success, each party to bear his own costs of this Court. Final Result : Allowed