IMPORTANT POINT
A female Hindu can acquire absolute rights to property if such rights are recognized in a compromise or settlement, even if initially conferred in lieu of maintenance, unless explicitly restricted by the terms of the award or will.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents.

2. The present appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants. The plaintiffs had filed a suit to declare ownership and recover possession of the agricultural field and house property. The suit of the plaintiffs was based upon an award passed on 14/7/1941 in Regular Civil Suit No.1018 of 1940 before the Court. In pursuance of the settlement terms, the suit properties were handed over to one Kashibai Dashrath Mali, who was admittedly the legal heir from the common ancestor Arjun. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the said award, the restricted rights were conferred upon Kashibai to enjoy the suit properties till her lifetime in lieu of maintenance. Hence, her rights were restricted. However, on 31/12/1966, she executed a Will in favour of the defendants, and the defendants were claiming the title through that Will. Before executing the Will, the defendants were in possession as a lessee of deceased Kashibai. The plaintiffs have a case that since Kashibai had no absolute title to the suit properties, she cannot dispose of the suit properties by way of Will. Therefore, the defendant cannot acquire the title. Consequently, they are entitled to the possession and declaration that they are the exclusive owners of the suit properties.

3. The defendant contested the suit. They have pleaded that Kashibai has the absolute rights in the suit properties. There was no dispute about the suit filed by Kashibai in the year 1940 and the passing of the award. The execution of the Will is also not disputed by either of the parties. Neither of the parties to the suit led the evidence, and the suit proceeded ahead. The learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, dismissed the suit.

4. By order dtd. 13/4/1993, this Court admitted the appeal as the grounds Nos.(i) to (iv) in appeal memo. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the grounds Nos.(i) to (iv) are the substantial questions of law involved in this case.

5. After hearing the respective learned counsels, this Court has reformulated the substantial questions of law as follows:

(i) Did Kashibai acquire only restricted rights to enjoy the suit properties in lieu of maintenance till her life was received from the award/ compromise in a suit?

(ii) Did Kashibai have the right to dispose of the property through a testamentary instrument? Both the lawyers conceded the substantial questions of law as reformulated above by the Court and advanced the arguments.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that both the Courts have not considered Sec. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. They dismissed the suit on the presumption that since the plaintiff's father had compromised the suit, that created the right in favour of Kashibai. They have acknowledged that the Kashibai had pre-existing rights. He further submits that when the compromise award was passed, Kashibai had no pre-existing right. The right was conferred upon her in lieu of maintenance till her life. Hence, she had no right to dispose of the property in any way, mode or manner. Since Kashibai had no absolute right, the Will Deed executed in favour of the defendants is null and void.

7. He relied on the cases of Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike and others ; (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 75 and M. Sivadasan (Dead) through L.Rs. and others Vs. A. Soudamini (Dead) through L.Rs. and others ; (2023) Supreme Court Cases OnLine 1078. He also relied on the case of Himi (Smt.) D/o Lachhmu (Smt.) and another Vs. Hira Devi (Smt.) wd/o Budhu Ram and others ; (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 642.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the Judgment of Sadhu Singh and argued that the law on the acquisition of a right by a woman under Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has been clarified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the right