1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 24/1/1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.107/1990 thereby conforming the judgment and decree dated 21/2/1990 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner in Regular Civil Suit No.58/1986 thereby suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein for declaration and delivery of possession of the suit land came to be decreed.

2. One Eknath who is the original owner of the agricultural land area 0.67 H.R. and the house No.38 situated at Bramhani, Tq. Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur (for short “suit property”) which is the subject matter of instant appeal who died in the year 1953 leaving behind him a widow Salubai and two daughters namely Chindhabai original plaintiff and Gangabai original defendant. Salubai mother of the plaintiff and defendant died in the year 1983. Before her death, on 19th October 1982 she executed the sale deed of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant over the ownership of the suit properties. This has resulted in the plaintiff filing suit for declaration, injunction and possession of the suit properties against her sister – defendant.

3. Defendant resisted the suit. Her case was that during life time and in the year 1982 Salubai mutually partitioned the suit properties and placed the plaintiff and defendant in possession of their respective shares. The mutations were also carried out. As against the sale deed executed by Salubai in respect of the suit properties, it is stated that fraud was practiced on her by the plaintiff. Sale deed being an outcome of fraud, no title in respect of the suit properties passed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The learned Trial Court framed as many as 10 issues. Oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. The learned Trial Court held that after death of Eknath, Salubai came in possession of the suit properties. By virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she became absolute owner of the same. On 10th August 1982 she executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. As regards defendant’s case that there was amicable settlement and suit properties were allotted to plaintiff and defendant in equal shares, it was held that there was no such partition and so-called partition deed is not admissible in evidence. In that light of the matter, the learned Trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to suit properties and granted the relief of declaration and possession of the suit properties.

5. The First Appellate Court after considering the material placed on record concurred with the findings of facts on all the points recorded by learned Trial Court. Resultantly, appeal came to be dismissed.

6. This Court vide order dated 12/6/1996 admitted this second appeal on grounds 2, 3 and 5 and thereafter the learned counsel for the appellant raised 3 more substantial questions of law for being adjudicated upon in this second appeal. They are reproduced below:

“1. Whether Smt. Salubai could transfer the property by sale-deed which property has already been transferred before the day of sale-deed and was in possession of the appellant, as owner thereof?

2. What was the effect of the mutation proceedings in mutating the said property in the name of the appellant in August 1982?

3. That, both the Courts below have erred in law in totally disregarding and overlooking the relevant papers on record showing that the suit property belonged to the appellant?

4. On the death of their father, were not the appellant and the respondent vested with right to maintenance against the suit property, which belonged to their deceased father?

5. On the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not this limited right of maintenance blossom into an absolute right in view of section 14(1) of the said Act?

6. After the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not the appellant, respondent and their mother b