Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. (for himself and on behalf of A. C. Gupta J.):- We have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by our learned brother S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and we agree with the conclusion reached by him in that judgment but we would prefer to give our own reasons. The facts giving rise to the appeal are set out clearly and succinctly in the judgment of our learned brother and we do not think it necessary to reiterate them.

2. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether it is sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 that applies where property is given to a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance under an instrument which in so many terms restricts the nature of the interest given to her in the property. If sub-section (1) applies, then the limitations on the nature of her interest are wiped out and she becomes the full owner of the property while on the other hand, if sub-section (2) governs such a case her limited interest in the property is not enlarged and she continues to have the restricted estate prescribed by the instrument. The question is of some complexity and it has evoked wide di