1. It was highly irregular on the part of the Subordinate Judge to allow Exhibit V to be used in evidence; no reasons are given for admitting it, and no evidence appears to have been taken.
2. The document, however, is of no importance, because it does not contain the admission which it had been supposed to contain. It does not support the respondents' case. Apart from this document, we can find no evidence on which the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the 1st issue could be supported ; still less on which the finding in plaintiff's favour could be reversed.
3. In the 4th and 5th paragraphs of his judgment various speculative observations are made by the Subordinate Judge, but no facts are referred to from which the inference in favour of self-acquisition could legally be drawn.
4. There is no evidence that the sons consented to the gift. In the case reported in Raghunath Prasad v. Gobind Prasad I.L.R. 8 A. 76, the gift was for the benefit of the family idol, and so according to Hindu Law was a gift for a proper purpose of family. There the gift was for a public purpose. It cannot, therefore, be supported. We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the courts below.