ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in 1966 (2) SCR 626 Eramma v. Verrupanna & Ors.; 2007(4) SCC 163 - Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder and Anr.; 1977(3) SCC 99, Tulasamma and Others v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and 1967 (3) SCR 454, Mangal Singh & Ors. v. Shrimati Rattno & Anr. to contend that Jaichha Kuwar did not become full owner of property as per section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel for the parties.

3. However in view of the decision of Tulasamma, the widow, namely, Jaichha Kuwar would have to be conferred right of ownership as she was holding the property for the purpose of maintenance and was also in possession of the same, though, her husband died much before 1937.

4. In Bai Vajia (Dead) by Lrs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 993 relying on Tulsamma (supra), this court observed :

3. At the outset it was pointed out by Mr. I.N. Shroff, under Counsel for the appellant, that Naraini Devi's case (supra) has since been over-ruled by the decision of this Court in V. Tulasamma and Ors. v. V. Sesha Reddi. [1977] 3 SCR 261 and we find that this is so. In the case last mentioned, the facts were these. The husband of Tulasamma died in the year 1931 in a state of jointness with his step-brother V. Sesha Reddi. A decree for maintenance was passed in favour of Tulasamma against V. Sesha Reddi on June 29, 1946. On the 30th July 1949, a compromise between the contending parties was certified by the Court executing that decree. Under the compromise, Tulasamma was allotted certain properties in lieu of maintenance, her right being limited to enjoyment thereof coupled with the specific condition that she would not have any right of alienation whatsoever. Tulasamma took possession of those properties and continued to enjoy them till the early sixties. On 12th of April 1960 she leased out some of the properties to two persons and on the 26th of May 1961 made a sale of some others to another person. V. Sesha Reddi filed a suit on July 31, 1961 for a declaration that the alienations made by Tulasamma were not binding on him and could remain valid only so long as she was alive. The basis of the action was that Tulasamma acquired a restricted estate under the terms of the compromise and that her interest could not be enlarged under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act in view of Sub-Section (2) of that Section The suit was decreed by the trial court whose decision however was reversed in appeal by the District Judge, with a finding that the allotment of properties to Tulasamma by the terms of the compromise had been made in recognition of a "pre-existing" right a finding which was reversed by the High Court, who restored the decree passed by the trial court. The matter came up to this Court in appeal by special leave and Fazal Ali, J., who wrote an exhaustive judgment thus formulated the two points falling for determination:

(1) Whether the instrument of compromise under which the properties were given to the appellant Tulasamma before the Hindu Succession Act in lieu of maintenance falls within Section 14(1) or is covered by Section 14(2) of that Act.

(2) Whether a Hindu widow has a right to property in lieu of her maintenance, and if such a right is conferred on her subsequently by way of maintenance it would amount to mere recognition of a pre-existing right or a conferment of new title so as to fall squarely within Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Fazal Ali, J., was of the opinion that the resolution of the dispute made it necessary that the real legal nature of the incidents of a Hindu widow's right to maintenance be considered. He referred to various works by celebrated authors on Hindu Law and in doing so cited passages from 'Digest of Hindu Law' by Colebrooke, 'Hindu Law' by G.S. Sastri, 'Hindu Law and Usage' by Mayne and 'Principles of Hindu Law' by Mulla and came to the conclusi