(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) ONE Smt Laijhari Devi, maternal grandmother of the appellant and widow of one Kamla Prasad Singh filed Suit No. 106 of 1941 for partition of the Hindu joint family property. A compromise decree dated 2/5/1942 was made for maintenance, wherein a life estate for residence in a portion of the residential house was provided for her. In 1956, Title Suit No. 100 of 1956 was filed in which Laijhari Devi was impleaded as 15th defendant. It would appear that since one of the issues could not be tried by the civil court, a reference was made to the Revenue court and a finding in that behalf was called for. After its receipt without further notice to her, she was set ex parte, the other contesting coparceners entered into three compromises and a preliminary decree was passed thereon in which the rights secured by Laijhari Devi in her Suit No. 106 of 1941 were not reiterated. The preliminary decree became final. Subsequently, in the final decree proceedings she had appeared and made her objections expressly staling on 30/9/1967 that the life estate of right to residence should be preserved and the same may be separately demarcated. Thus:

"THAT this opposite party is an aged and Paradanashin lady of a highly respectable family and she being in the sole occupation of the residential portion of Sadhana House aforesaid and mo"e fully detailed and described at the foot of this petition and she being in peaceful exclusive possession over the same from a long number of years, improving and maintaining the same and the same being recognised by the parties, it is necessary, just in the ends of justice that her exclusive possession over the zanana portion of Sadhana House be kept intact and be not disturbed by any of the parties till her lifetime, and the final decree be ordered to be prepared in such a way that the portion in her occupation as set forth above be not disturbed in any way."

(3) IT would appear that the Advocate-Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings separately demarcated the portion in which Laijhari Devi was residing. She continued to live therein and Laijhari Devi died on 10/7/1984.

(4) ON 1/8/1984, her daughter, Smt Krishna Devi filed an application for her substitution as her mothers legal representative claiming that the limited estate created in the compromise deed dated 2/5/1942 was enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) and that thereby she acquired l/6th share in the said property and that she was entitled to reopen the final decree. Krishna Devi who also remained to live in that house died and the appellant has come on record as her legal representative. The courts below refused to reopen the case and dismissed the application on the ground that after the knowledge of the ex parte decree having been made against Laijhari Devi she did not make an application under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code (for short, the Code). Since preliminary decree did not recognise the right of Laijhari Devi and the same having become final, she did not acquire any share in the coparcenary property. Therefore, Krishna Devi was not entitled to be substituted. Accordingly the applications were dismissed on 25/3/1985. On revision, the High court by the impugned order dated 12/5/1994 held that pending revision, final decree had become final, the question of reopening the preliminary decree and substitution of the appellant does not arise. The High court dismissed the revision application. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(5) IT appears from the above-quoted objections filed by Laijhari Devi, after the compromise preliminary decree in Title Suit No. 100 of 1956 was passed, that she had admitted to have life estate of right to residence and maintenance given in compromise decree in Suit No. 106 of 1941 and that she would be satisfied if the life estate was preserved during her lifetime and the prope