Property acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance becomes her absolute property and not a limited estate, notwithstanding any restrictive covenants in the instrument, grant or award whereunder the property is given to her.

ORDER

B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the defendants-appellants. The suit for "possession of the land (suit lands) to the extent of 7/8th share" has been decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal and second appeal.

2A. Gurdial Singh was a resident of a village in Bhatinda district in Punjab. He owned 94 kanals and 19 marlas of land in the village. He was working as an employment officer in Madhya Pradesh. The relations between him and his wife, Smt. Harmel Kaur, were strained. They were living apart. Harmel Kaur filed a petition under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old Code) for grant of maintenance. In those proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between Gurdial Singh and Harmel Kaur whereunder the suit lands (94 kanals and 19 marlas in extent) were given to Harmel Kaur in lieu of her maintenance. The compromise entered into between them is evidenced by Exh. P-3. The lands were given to Harmel Kaur subject to the following conditions:

"1. That the possession of the land in dispute was given to Harmel Kaur defendant No. 4.

2. That Harmel Kaur would be entitled to get the land cultivated or to lease it out and to utilize its income for herself, wherever she likes.

3. That she would not sell or mortgage this land. She would however be responsible for the payment of land revenue or any other Govt. Tax from time to time.

4. If during (he lifetime of Harmel Kaur, Gurdial Singh gets back the land fom her he would pay her Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance.

5. If Gurdial Singh died before Harmel Kaur, then, in that case, Harmel Kaur would be entitled to get her share from me said land as a legal heir in accordance with the law.

6. The maintenance allowance of Rs. 25/- per month already being paid to her, shall be stopped.

7. Harmel Kaur shall also be entitled to keep her residence at V. Mehraj in the house belonging to Gurdial Singh.

8. Harmel Kaur also thumb marked this agreement/compromise and agreed that in case the land is taken away back by Gurdial Singh, then she would get Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance from him." Exh. P-3 is dated December 3, 1963.

3. Gurdial Singh died on July 30, 1981.

4. Harmel Kaur executed four sale deeds in November, 1987 and August, 1988 in favour of pefendant Nos. 1 to 3 (appellants herein) whereunder she sold 70 kanals and 19 marlas of land out of the suit lands for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,200/-. On that basis, mutation was also effected in the name of the appellants.

5. In January, 1991 the present suit was filed. The first plaintiff claimed to be the wife (second wife) of Gurdial Singh while Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 claimed to be their daughters. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was married to Gurdial Singh on March 21, 1946. They claimed a 7/8th share in the suit lands (including 70 kanals and 19 marlas sold to the appellants) under and in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. According to them, Harmel Kaur was entitled only to a 1/8th share. The defendants denied that the first plantiff was married to Gurdial Singh or that Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters of Gurdial Singh. This issue is, however, concluded by the finding of the first appellate Court to the effect that the first plaintiff was indeed married to Gurdial Singh and that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are their daughters.

6. The Courts below have decreed the suit holding that under the compromise aforementioned, only a life interest was created in Harmel Kaur and not an absolute interest. According to them (the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine), it is sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act that applies herein and not subsection (1). The correctness of the said view is questioned by the defendants-appellants. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as follows:

"14. Property of a female Hindu t