1. Heard Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.S.Kapse, learned counsel for respondent nos.1(g),1(h) and 1(i), Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 in both the Appeals at length.

2. The short question that falls for determination in these Appeals is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act') applies. In that context, it is appropriate to quote the observations made by Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Bhagwati (as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) in paragraph 67 of V. Tulasamma Vs. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 99):-

“…The question is of some complexity and it has evoked wide diversity of judicial opinion not only amongst the different High Courts but also within some of the High Courts themselves. It is indeed unfortunate that though it became evident as far back as 1967 that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 were presenting serious difficulties of construction in cases where property was received by a Hindu female in lieu of maintenance and the instrument granting such property