Judgment : S. K. Phaujdar, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, in Civil Appeal No. 142 or 1979, whereby the Court below was pleased to dismiss the first appeal of the present appellant. The aforesaid first appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of Munsif, Gorakhpur, in Original Suit No. 102 of 1976 instituted by the present appellant which was dismissed on 22-3-1979. 2. The said suit was filed by the present appellant against the defendant-respondents for cancellation of a deed of gift dated 9-5-1968 allegedly executed by the husband of the plaintiff- appellant covering the property as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that her husband Ram Sahu was the owner of the property in dispute and was in possession thereof. The plaintiff and her husband and only two daughters. The husband of the plaintiff had grown old and was under financial constraints to get the daughters married. He requested defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 1 be married with the elder daughter of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 demanded that such marriage would be possible if the plaintiffs husband executed a Will in favour of his daughter for the house in suit. Under compulsion, the plaintiff's husband had signed a deed dated 9-5-1968 and the marriage was performed. This marriage, however, was not a happy one. The daughter of the plaintiff was murdered by her husband on 12-11-1970. A report was made. The deed that was scribed was in fact not a Will but a gift and was fraudulently obtained under undue advantage of the financial constraints of the husband of the plaintiff. The valuation of the property allegedly gifted was show far less than its actual value. For all these reasons, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the deed dated 9-5-1968. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement. It was stated therein that the plaint allegations and averments were false. It was contended that as Ram Sahu had only two daughters, he sincerely wished that he would give one house each to his daughters by way of gift. Consequently, when the marriage of the first daughter was settled, he made a gift of the house in dispute in favour of his daughter Savitri and her husband-to-be. It was contended that as Ram Sahu had only two daughters, he sincerely wished that he would give one house each to his daughters by way of gift. Consequently, when the marriage of the first daughter was settled, he made a gift of the house in dispute in favour of his daughter Savitri and her husband-to-be. The gift was accepted. After marriage, they started living in the said house. There was no fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift-dead. The plaintiff Gulaichi Devi mother of Savitri, was also living in the house as per terms of the deed. The death of Savitri could not have affected the gift in any manner. 3. The trial court framed several issues touching the alleged deed and touching the maintainability of the suit. The suit was held undervalued and the court fee paid was held insufficient. On the question of the gift, the trial court was of the view that the gift-deed dated 9-5-1968 was not obtained by fraud or undue influence and was not bad for violation of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, DP Act ). The other issues were also decided in favour of the defendant and the suit was held to be barred by limitation, estoppel and acquiescence and it was further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. 4. In the first appeal, the court framed five points for decision. It was held that the deed was not violative of the provisions of the D. P. Act and that the defendant had acquired good title under the gift- deed which was accepted by him and the deed in question was not a will deed but was a gift-deed only. The appellate court, how ever, found that the suit was not barred by limitation but it was barred on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence accordingly, the lower court's judgment and decree were confirmed. In the present second appeal, the respondents were noticed but they did not choose to appear and the matter was heard ex-pane. The appeal was admitted only on one substantial questions of law as per order dated 4-9-1981. The question was : "whether the transaction dated 9-5-1968 was hit by the provisions of Section 5 of the DP Act, 1961 -. The appeal was admitted only on one substantial questions of law as per order dated 4-9-1981. The question was : "whether the transaction dated 9-5-1968 was hit by the provisions of Section 5 of the DP Act, 1961 -. " The learned counsel, however, advanced his arguments on the question of limitation and on the question of acceptance of the gift by the donee in addition to the substantial question of law that was framed at the time of admission. As indicated above, the lower appellate court had come to a finding that the appeal was not barred by limitation. As such, the plaintiff- appellant need not and cannot raise the question of limitation. The other points raised by the learned counsel was on a finding of fact that the gift was accepted by the donee. This finding of fact may not, therefore, be allowed to be agitated or canvassed in the second appeal. This Court is, therefore, confronted with only one question and that is the substantial question of law as framed in the order dated 4-9-1981. 5. On this point the averments in the plaint were that the husband of the plaintiff had proposed that the defendant No. 1 be married to his daughter Savitri. This proposal was given to the defendant No. 2. Upon this proposal, defendant No. 2 had stated that the marriage could be performed only if he made a Will in favour of his daughter for one of his two houses and the husband of the plaintiff was forced by the circumstances to execute the deed to see the marriage of his daughter performed. It was averred in the plaint that the alleged gift/will was in lieu of the marriage and was a consideration for the marriage. Accordingly, it was against law and social norms and was void and inoperative. The defence on this point was that Ram Sahu sincerely wished that he would gift one house each to his two daughters on their marriage. There was no compulsion or constraints imposed on Ram Sahu for executing the deed and he acted voluntarily to execute the gift-deed in favour of Savitri and defendant No. 1. 6. The court of first instance took up the first question under issue No. 4 framed by him. There was no compulsion or constraints imposed on Ram Sahu for executing the deed and he acted voluntarily to execute the gift-deed in favour of Savitri and defendant No. 1. 6. The court of first instance took up the first question under issue No. 4 framed by him. It was found by the Court of first instance that the plaintiff had admitted that she herself as also her husband intended that the houses be given to the two daughters by separate Wills. By "will" she understood that her husband and she would enjoy the property during their life-time. The deed in question was marked Ext. A-l before the trial court, and a life interest was created in favour of the plaintiff' and her husband, but Savitri and Uma Shanker (defendant No. 1) were made owners of the house through this deed (Ext. A-l ). The trial court found that the deed in question was a deed of gift executed voluntarily without any undue influence or fraud. The trial court found that the deed was executed on 9-5-1968 and the marriage was performed on 13-5-1968 and the gift, according to him, came within the purview of Section 2 of the D. P. Act. But the went on further to hold that simply for this reason the transaction would not be invalid once the deed was executed and the gift was accepted. He was further of the view that Section 5 of the D. P. Act simply declares and agreement for giving and taking dowry as void and it did not cover transfers already made. The first appellate court also engaged itself on this point and the finding of the court below was confirmed. Section 2 of the D. P. Act defines what is dowry. Under this definition, dowry means any property given or agreed to be given, either directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The very definition indicates that the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the proximity of the deed and the marriage suggests that the gift was in connection with the marriage. The very definition indicates that the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the proximity of the deed and the marriage suggests that the gift was in connection with the marriage. Section 5 of the Act States that an agreement for giving or taking dowry shall be void. Section 6 states that where any dowry is received by any person, other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman and pending such transfer shall hold it is trust for the benefit of the woman. When we read Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 together, it is found that although giving and taking dowry is prohibited and an agreement for giving or taking dowry is void and hence unenforceable, the law provides that if any dowry has really been given, the same would ensure to the benefit of the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given and the person who receives the (dowry (even in contravention of the law) must transfer it to the woman and pending such transfer shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. In the transaction in question, the dowry was given in the shape of a gift of a house in favour of defendant No. 1 and his wife Savitri, being a daughter of the plaintiff. There is a finding of fact, and. this Court must proceed on such finding, that the gift was accepted by defendant No. 1 and Savitri. The gift was to be for the benefit of Savitri alone and the defendant No. 1 was required under the law to transfer it to Savitri. Now that Savitri is dead, the property has devolved on her heirs including the husband. A true interpretation of Section 6 would indicate that past transactions of dowry are not to be invalidated only for the reason of being violative of Section 2 of the D. P. Act, but the same are to be treated as ones for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. The transaction in question dated 9-5-1968 may not, therefore, declared void simply because it was a "dowry" under the provisions of Section 2 of the D. P. Act. The gift deed may not, therefore, be declared void on this ground and it may not, accordingly, be cancelled on the prayer of the plaintiff. The transaction in question dated 9-5-1968 may not, therefore, declared void simply because it was a "dowry" under the provisions of Section 2 of the D. P. Act. The gift deed may not, therefore, be declared void on this ground and it may not, accordingly, be cancelled on the prayer of the plaintiff. The findings of the court below on this point must, therefore, be upheld. 7. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed ex parte. Appeal dismissed.