VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal involves two important questions, one regarding the applicability of section 14 (1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the other about interpretation of a document called Tamliknama.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the controversy in question are narrated as under. The appellant is the legal heir of plaintiff Tulsabai. Plaintiff Tulsabai filed special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1972 for declaration of right of ownership and for recovery of possession of land S. No. 100/b, commonly known as Palsa Babat admeasuring 7 acres 17 gts. and land S. No. 139 admeasuring 35 acres 4 gts. situated at Barahalli, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, one Gangadharrao Deshpande was the owner and possessor of the suit lands. That Gangadharrao Deshpande died 65 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving behind him his wife Haranabai and one daughter Tulsabai - the plaintiff. That after the death of Gangadharrao, his wife haranabai became the owner of the properties of Gangadharrao Deshpande and enjoyed the possession thereof. That the defendants Nos. 2 to 8 are the sons of one Venkatrao Deshpande, the defendants Nos. 9 and 10 are the real brothers and the defendant No. 11 is the nephew of defendants Nos. 9 and 10. The defendants nos. 2 to 11 are the distant kindred of Gangadharrao. The mother of the plaintiff died on 26th November, 1969 after coming into operation of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. It is the case of the plaintiff that Haranabai was the sole, absolute and full owner of the properties in dispute and the defendants Nos. 2 to 11 had absolutely no concern or right whatsoever. That Haranabai died at the age of 85 years at Degloor and before her death, had bequeathed all her properties in favour of the plaintiff Tulsabai by a registered Will dated 17th June, 1968. That after the death of Haranabai, Tulsabai intended to mutate the suit properties in her name. However, on 19-3-1969, the defendant No. 7 Malharrao submitted an application before the Talathi setting forth the plea that he was entitled to get the mutation of the lands effected in his favour. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant Nos. 2 to 8, in collusion with the defendants Nos. 9 to 11, sought to dispute the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties. That for the year 1969-70, the defendant No. 1 Sakharam was engaged as an agricultural labourer for cultivating the disputed land on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then pleaded that the defendant No. 1 being the employee of the plaintiff, had absolutely no right to remain in possession of the disputed land but however the defendant no. 1, in collusion with defendants Nos. 2 to 10, refused to deliver possession of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of right of ownership and for recovery of possession of the suit lands.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and admitted the ownership of Gangadharrao and the plaintiff over the suit properties but claimed spacific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 2-8-1968 whereby the plaintiff purportedly agreed to sell the properties to defendant No. 1. The defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to 8, who have almost common interest, filed separate written statements with almost identical pleadings. The defendants denied that Gangadharrao was the owner of the properties and that Haranabai became the owner thereof after the death of Gangadharrao. The defendants pleaded that Vasudeorao - the grandfather of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 and his brother Raghunathrao were the owners of the suit lands. It was then pleaded in para No. 8 of the written statement that Haranabai was not the sole, absolute and full owner and possessor of the lands in dispute. It was further pleaded that the entry of the name of Haranabai in the village record in respect of the suit land as