.

ORDER

1. One Hirday Ram, the original owner of the suit property, had three wives namely Kubja, Pari and Uttamdassi. Kubja who predeceased him had given birth to a daughter Tikami. Hirday Ram through a Will dated 1-101938 bequeathed a part of the property to his daughter Tikami and the remaining property was given to the two wives for their maintenance with the condition that they would not have the power to alienate the same in any manner. The property was to revert back to his daughter Tikami as absolute owner after the death of the two wives. Hirday Ram died. His second wife Pari also died in 1939 and her share came to vest in the third wife, Uttamdassi.

2. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Uttamdassi sold a part of the property to one Sandup on 28-11-1958, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 1 and 2. Sandup mortgaged back the property to Uttamdassi. Uttamdassi on 2-12-1958, made a gift of another property in favour of Respondent 3 who in turn sold it to Respondent 4.

3. The appellant herein, the daughter of Tikami and granddaughter of Hirday Ram, filed a suit challenging the alienation made by Uttamdassi by way of sale and gift and seeking a decree of declaration that the alienation made by Uttamdassi would not affect her reversionary rights. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 12-7-1961. Appeal preferred by Uttamdassi was dismissed on 25-1-1963. The decree became final as it was not put to challenge in further appeal in the High Court.

4. On 24-5-1975 Uttamdassi gifted the property sold by her to Sandup in 1958 in favour of Respondent 5. The appellant again filed a suit challenging the alienation and seeking a declaration that the alienation made by Uttamdassi would not affect her reversionary rights. The trial court dismissed the suit. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was accepted by the first appellate court. The gift made by Uttamdassi in favour of Respondent 5 was held to be void ab initio and a declaration was given that the alienation made by Uttamdassi would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff. This decree also became absolute as the same was not put to any further challenge. Uttamdassi gifted a part of the property in favour of Respondent 5 by way of a Will dated 27-12-1986. Uttamdassi died on 1-1-1987.

5. After the death of Uttamdassi, the appellant brought a suit for possession of the suit property being the nearest reversioner and on the basis of the earlier decrees obtained by her. The trial court dismissed the suit on 22-8-1989. Relying upon V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy1 it was held, inter alia, that though the suit property was given to the wives of Hirday Ram as limited owners but in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Uttamdassi became the absolute owner of the suit property and had the right to alienate the same by way of sale, gift or Will.

6. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 30-9-1991 by the first appellate court holding, inter alia, that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant did not operate as res judicata inter se parties as same were passed in suits failed by the appellant as presumptive reversioner of the widow of Hirday Ram and the present suit was filed after her death for possession as owner.

7. The appellant preferred a regular second appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court holding, inter alia, that interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act; 1956 was a pure question of law and the earlier decrees obtained on the interpretation of law in the case of Karmi v. Amru2 cannot operate as res judicata in the face of the contrary interpretation put to Section 14 in the later decision of this Court in V. Tulasamma easel. It was observed that the declaratory decree of 1978 (in the second suit) was given after the interpretation of and declaration of the law by this Court in V. Tulasamma easel, therefore, these decrees were erroneous on points of law and cou