Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act confers full ownership on a female Hindu who acquires property, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, irrespective of the terms of any decree or order of a civil court.

JUDGEMENT :- The above second appeal raises an interesting point of law under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and arises out of a suit for possession filed by respondent No. 1 Vishwanath Pandharinath Joshi.

2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under :-

3. One Mathurabai, the widow of Narhar Joshi, died on or about May 29, 1965. The plaintiff Vishwanath and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are the nephews of her deceased husband Narhar. The genealogy of the family, as set out by the learned District Judge in his judgement, is as follows :-

4. The suit lands were owned by Narhar. After his death, Mathurabai was in possession thereof. On November 19, 1945, she executed

a sale-deed in respect of the suit lands in favour of the father of defendant No. 2 in the present suit, Vasudeo Gopal Haveli.

5. The plaintiff Vishwanath filed Civil Suit No. 324 of 1951 on October 17, 1951 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi, against the said Vasudeo Gopal Haveli as defendant No. 1, Mathurabai as defendant No. 2 and the present defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Bhau, Rangnath and Ambadas, his brothers, as defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The suit ended in a decree declaring that the sale-deed executed by Mathurabai was not binding on the reversioners. The plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 in that suit. The certified copy of the judgement dated December 19, 1952 in that case is produced at Ex. 102 and the certified copy of the decree is produced at Ex. 103.

6. On May 22, 1965, Mathurabai repurchased the suit lands from the present defendant No. 2 and on May 28, 1965, almost on the date of her death, she sold them to defendant No. 1, the appellant in the above second appeal, Bhagwan Dattatraya Budukh for Rs. 3,000/-.

7. The sale in favour of defendant No. 1 was challenged in the present suit by Vishwanath who claimed to be the nearest reversioners, the behalf of himself and the other reversioners, defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, contending that the decision in Civil Suit No. 824 of 1951 was binding on Mathurabai and defendant No. 2; and hence the re-sale in favour of Mathurabai and the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 Bhagwan were not binding on the reversioners as defendant No. 2 had only a Me estate ill the property which was repurchased by Mathurabai and

sold to Bhagwan.

8. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1, contending, inter alia, that by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, after the re-purchase Mathurabai became the full owner of the suit lands acquired under the repurchase; and hence the plaintiff or defendants Nos. 4 to 6 had no right to challenge the subsequent sale-deed dated May 8, 1965 on the ground that their rights to succeed were secured by the decree in Civil suit No. 324 of 1951

9. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi, by his judgement and decree dated January, 11, 1968, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs overruling all the points which were raised on behalf of the plaintiff, as he was of the view that Mathurabai, when she regained the suit lands from the present defendant No. 2 on May 22, 1965, became a full owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, observing in paragraph 14 of his judgement as under :-

"14. Issue No. 4.- This brings us to consider whether Mathurabai had become the absolute owner of the property after the 22nd May 1965. I am inclined to hold that she had become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Mathurabai held a life-estate in the suit fields in 1945, which interest she had alienated to Shri Haveli, but when she repurchased it on the 22nd May 1965, that life interest enlarges itself into absolute estate by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The word 'possessed' in Section 14 is now interpreted to mean 'the state of owning'. It is held that the possession contemplated is not actual physical possession only but may be possession in law, (vide Mulla's Hindu Law p. 827, 18th Edition). In a recent case, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document