Judgment

R.M.SAHAI, J.

(1) DOES the life estate of a widow under a will executed in 1941 gets enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in brief the Act) if the succession opened after death of the testator in 1958 is the question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High court (Nagpur bench).

(2) HOW the dispute arose may be narrated, in brief, to determine if the High court committed any error of law in setting aside the concurrent orders passed by the two courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It has been found and is not disputed that the last male holder had two wives. He executed a will of his property in 1941 giving one-half share to each of his wives till their life and the respondent, the only daughter, was to be ultimate beneficiary. The testator died in 1958. The next to die in 1966 was one of his wives, the stepmother of the plaintiff. But, few months before her death, she had executed a will in favour of the defendant-appellant, a complete stranger to the family, allegedly her domestic servant. It is the validity of this will, basically, which has been subject-matter of dispute. According to the respondent, the will was invalid as her mother having right of maintenance only, she had no right or title which she could validly transfer by way of will in favour of the appellant. On pleadings of parties various issues were framed. It is not necessary to narrate them as the finding on the nature of interest that the mother of the respondent had in the property, was recorded both by the trial court and First Appellate court in her favour. It was held that her mother had life interest only. But the suit was dismissed as the life estate created under the will stood converted into absolute estate under Section 14(1 of the Act as it was in recognition of pre-existing right. The High court did not agree with this and held that the widow could not get larger interest than that was intended by the testator. Thus execution of the will by the last male holder in 1941, grant of life interest to the two wives, vesting of property ultimately in the daughter, death of testator in 1958, his wife whose share is now in dispute in 1966 and bequeathing of the property by her in favour of the appellant few months before her death are facts which have been found to have been proved by all the courts. The difference arose between the High court and the two courts below on applicability of the law only.

(3) WHAT, therefore, falls for consideration is if the testamentary disposition of property by a male Hindu by a will which comes into operation after 1956, creating life interest in favour of his widow, subsists as such after his death or she becomes an absolute owner by operation of sub-section (1 of Section 14 read with the explanation. In other words, what is the dichotomy between two Ss. of Section 14 which forms the bedrock of revolutionary changes brought out in Hindu Law of Succession in 1956. The Act was one out of the series of legislations enacted in 1956 effecting far-reaching changes in the customary Hindu Law. It undid the social injustice to which the females were subjected for centuries by equating them with males in matters of inheritance, succession and disposition of property. The Act confers rights of inheritance and sweeps away the traditional limitations on powers of females on disposition of property etc. which were regarded under the Hindu Law as inherent in her estate (S.S. Manna Lal v. S.S. RajKumar.) They too became, a stock of descent (Kalawatibai v. SoiryabaP.) A female Hindu who, except for stridhan property, was a limited owner became an absolute owner under Section 14 of the Act. The section not only removed the disability from which a female suffered in acquiring and holding property but it