Bhagwati, J.

1. His Lordship set out the facts rejected the first contention of the defts. The judgment then proceeded; ] The next contention urged by him was that in any event the partition in regard to the agricultural lands was saved by the proviso to S. 2, Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942. We have already adverted to the circumstances under which the Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942 came to be passed. The Hindu Womens Eight to Property Act, 1937, the Hindu Womens Right to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938, purported to give better rights to women to property in general. But the F. G. held that the said Acts did not operate to give them better rights in respect of agricultural lands. Several transactions had already taken place in the Province of Bombay on the basis that women had acquired better rights under the said Acts in the case of agricultural lands as well as other kinds of properties these transactions were invalidated by reason of the judgment of the P. G. Necessity, therefore, arose to validate those transactions as well as to give women in future those better rights. For that purpose as well as for other purposes it was deemed expedient to extend the said Act to agricultural lands with retrospective effect but with certain savings. Therefore the Bombay Legislature passed Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942. The preamble to that Act showed that the main purpose of the Act was to validate the transactions which had been effected on the basis that women had acquired better rights in respect of agricultural lands also, that was really the background of the passing of the Act. It was with that end in view that under Section 2 of the Act the term "property" so far as the Province of Bombay was concerned, was declared to include was deemed always to have included agricultural lands. The result of the substantive enactment, therefore, was that all the transactions that had already taken place in the Province of Bombay on the basis that women had acquired better rights in respect of agricultural lands also were thereby validated with retrospective effect. The Legislature then had to consider the situation which would arise by reason of certain persons having been in possession of property having been entitled thereto under the law as it was laid down by the F. C. judgment or those persons having made transfers of such property before Bombay Act XVII [17] of 1942 was enacted. As a corollary to the F. C. judgment such possession would be unlawful or without any vestige of title the transfers also would be void, the transferor having no right, title interest in the property 90 transferred by him. This possession these transfers had got to be saved from the operation of Section 2 of the Act the proviso was, therefore, enacted that :

"Where any person who, but for this Act, would have been entitled to any property has been in possession or has made a transfer thereof, his possession till the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be as lawful, the transfer made by him shall be deemed to be as valid, as if this Act had not been passed."

The possession of such persons the transfers made by them were thus declared to be valid they were not to be affected by the enactment of Secton 2 of the Act. The person who had been thus in possession would not be liable to any rendition of accounts or for the mesne profits in regard to the possession which he thitherto enjoyed, The transferees under the various transfers which might have been made before the commencement of the Act were entitled to the properties which they had thus acquired and those transfers were not to be set aside. The transferees were not to be deprived of the properties which they had acquired by such transfers.

2. Relying upon this proviso to a. 2 of the Act it was urged- by Mr. V. S. Desai for the applts. that prior to 13-10-1942, when Bombay Act XVII [171 of 1942 came into operation a partition had already been effected between the three branches of t