The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad interpretation of 'possession' and the transformation of limited estate into absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted

( 2 ) APPLICATION of Section 14 (1) of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th November, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka high Court at Bangalore in Regular Second appeal No. 276 of 2003.

( 3 ) THE short factual matrix involved may be noticed at the threshold.

( 4 ) FOR the said purpose, we may notice the genealogy of the family.

( 5 ) ORIGINAL Suit bearing No. 34 of 1964 was filed by Sundrabai, first wife of trimukhrao (respondent No. 1 herein) against mallikarjun (since deceased) and Kashibai (defendant No. 4 therein ). A consent decree was passed in that suit, the relevant clauses whereof were as under :-

"1. The plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 are the wives of deceased Trimbakrao. The defendant No. 1 is the son of Trimbakrao. The plaintiff Sundrabai and Mallikarjun and his mother Kashibai resides separately.

2. That as per compromise the land Sy. No. 73 Kh. No. 145 to the extent of measuring 6 acres 33 gunatas. R. A. Rs. 9. 00 situated at khandala, on north side bounded in the east the land of Shivalingappa Biradar in the west public way. In the north the land of shankarappa in the south remain land Sy. No. 73, was given to the plaintiff for her maintenance. She is in possession of that portion of land since 5/6 years. The defendants will not interfere and obstruct in the peaceful possession of that portion of land which was given to the plaintiff for her maintenance, till her death. The defendants no. 1 and 2 will remain in possession of remaining half portion of land Sy. No. 73 on south side as owner. The plaintiff will not alienate (through gift or sale) land which was given for her maintenance.

3. That after the death of the plaintiff the land given to her will be reversed to the defendant No. 1 and 2. The parties will bear their costs of the cost. "

( 6 ) MALLIKARJUN died in the year 1987. Sundrabai died in 1992. Respondents herein who are heirs and legal representatives of sundrabai filed Original Suit No. 210 of 1993 claiming the said land admeasuring 6 Acres 33 guntas from the northern side of Survey No. 73 on the ground that she had become owner thereof in terms of Section 14 (1) of the Act. Appellants who were arrayed in the suit as defendants inter alia contended that Sundrabai was not the absolute owner of the said property having been allotted to her by reason of the consent decree. It was furthermore contended that the land in suit was allotted to her by way of maintenance which she could keep in possession only during her life time and, therefore, Section 14 (2) of the Act and not section 14 (1) of the Act would apply.

( 7 ) THE said suit was dismissed on the premise that the plaintiffs were not the owners and were not in possession of the suit property.

( 8 ) ON an appeal having been preferred thereagainst, the Principal District Judge bidar by his judgment and order dated 2nd january, 2003 allowed the said appeal opining that Section 14 (1) of the Act being applicable, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property. By reason of the impugned judgment the second appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

( 9 ) MR. Solashe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of this appeal inter alia would submit that the High Court committed a serious error of law in so far as it failed to take into consideration that Sundrabai on partition could not have been allotted 6 Acres 33 guntas of land and in that view of the matter, although the land which could fall in her share would be covered by Section 14 (1) of the Act, but according to the learned counsel the share of Sundrabai in the joint family being 7/24 in the total land of joint family being 12 acres 33 guntas, share of Sundrabai would come only to 3 acres 29 guntas. It was submitted that the word 'possessed' contained in Section 14 (1)