Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to cases where a female Hindu acquires property under an instrument that creates a "restricted estate" in such property.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises a short but important question in regard to the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, hereinafter called "the Act".

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs, who are the appellants, instituted the suit for possession of the suit for possession of the property. It was contended that late Subbarao, the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of the 2nd plaintiff died undivided with plaintiffs about ten years before. After the death of Subbarao, his paternal grand-mother Narsamma, who was then living, claimed separate maintenance. The matter was referred to some mediators and consequently the parties entered into a family arrangement on 14-8-1947 under which the suit property was given to Narasamma in lieu of her maintenance during her lifetime with certain restrictions. The defendant, who is her daughter, persuaded Narasamma to execute a deed in her favour which Narasamma had no right to execute.

( 3 ) THE defendant opposed the action mainly on the ground that Narasamma had absolute rights under Section 14 of the Act, and as Narasamma settled the property in her favour, the plaintiffs have no right to claim the property.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit finding that the case fell under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. It was held that Narasamma could not have settled the property in favour of the defendant.

( 5 ) THE Subordinate Judge, before whom the matter was carried in appeal, differed with the conclusion of the District Munsif and dismissed the plaintiffs suit mainly on the ground that Exhibit A-1 and its counter-part are in admissible in evidence inasmuch as they were not registered documents. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge thought that as the documents are inadmissible, the case is taken out of the purview of Sub-section (2) and the case falls within the ambit of sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Act.

( 6 ) THE principal question which falls for my consideration in this appeal is whether Section 14 (2) of the Act applies to the present case. The facts do not seem to be in dispute. It is the common case that the document which was executed in favour of Narasamma by the plaintiffs was on identical terms with that of Exhibit A-1, which is an instrument executed by Narasamma in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also not in dispute that according to the said documents the suit property was given to Narasamma in lieu of her maintenance to be enjoyed by her during her life time. There were restrictions that Narasamma should not damage the fruit trees or grant bilmakta leases or effect mortgages etc.

( 7 ) SECTION 14, by sub-section (1), provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. the Explanation to the first sub-section provides that the expression "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by one of the several modes mentioned therein including the acquisition of property in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance. In order to attract the provisions of this section, three things are posited : Firstly, there must be property ; secondly, there must be a Hindu woman, and thirdly that property must be possessed by her at the time of the commencement of the Act. It is only when these three things co-exist that a female Hindu shall hold the property from the date of the Act as full owner in whatever be her rights in the property except of course in cases excepted in sub-section (2) of that section. According to the traditional Hindu Law, the concept was that whatever property is acquired by a Hindu female, she acquires it as a limited owner. That concept has undergone now a radical change. After this section came into vogue, unless the case is brought under sub-section (2) of S. 14, the general presumption is that she takes an absolute estate. Sub-section (2) almost lays down a presumption in favour of the absoluteness of the estate in