A vendor cannot limit the interest of a purchaser in a deed of Conveyance by inserting a habendum that purports to create a life estate, as this is repugnant to Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff No. 1. It is arises out of a suit brought by her and one Sambhu Mukherjee for a declaration that premises No. 51/a and B, Lansdowne Road were Debutar properties of the deities. Sree Durgajee and Sree Baraha Kalijee and, they were the respective Shebaits.

( 2 ) THE Plaintiff No. 1 is a granddaughter (daughter's daughter) of Kalidashi Devi who executed a Will, by which, she decided 51/b, Lansdowne Road, to the deity - Sree Durgajee and appointed her only daughter Durgarani, the Shebait and after her death, her daughter, - the plaintiff No. 1. The premises No. 51/a, Lansdowne Road was dedicated to the deity Sree Baraha Kalijee and Sambhu Nath Mukherjee, her grandson (son of the defendant No. 1) was appointed a Shebait. After the death of Kalidashi Devi, who died on the 24th of November, 1949, plaintiff No. 1 applied for letter of administration in respect of her Will of the said Kalidashi. Three days thereafter, defendant No. 3 brought partition suit being title suit No. 65 of 1950, in the 1st court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The plaintiff No. 1 applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for being added as a party in that suit. Her prayer was rejected. The plaintiff No. 1, after contest, however, obtained a letter of administration regarding the Will of Kalidashi. Thereafter, a Receiver was appointed in the said partition suit. As the Shebaits were deprived of the income of the Debuttar Estate, the plaintiffs brought the above suit for necessary declaration and for an injunction restraining the defendants from realizing rents from the tenants of the Debutter Properties.

( 3 ) THE defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Sekharesh and Sunilesh, the sons of Kalidashi, contested the suit. Their defence, in substance, was, that Kalidashi had only a limited interest with regard to the disputed properties. She had no right to dispose properties. She had no right to dispose of the same by a Will. W. C. Banerjee, the father of Kalidashi was a rich coal mine owner, who advanced the loan to one Durgadas Chatterjee and subsequently, purchased the property with his own money for the benefits of his widowed daughter - Kalidashi, during her life time and thereafter for the absolute benefits of her sons - the defendants. Since the death of their mother, the defendants have been possessing the properties.

( 4 ) THE trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit upon the findings that Kalidashi advanced Rs. 30,000/- to Durgadas Chatterjee; W. C. Banerjee - the father of Kalidashi, made a gift of the said money to his widowed daughter; Kalidashi became absolute owner of the suit premises by purchases by purchase and the limitation of her interest created in the limitation of her interest created in the Conveyance was unlawful under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The learned Subrdinate Judge further observed that under the Indian Law the vendor has no right to limit the interest of the purchaser in the deed by which the property had been transferred absolutely to the purchaser. The vendor was not competent to abridge the interest of the vendee in the habendum.

( 5 ) ON appeal, the court of appeal below set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon the view that Kalidashi was the holder of a life estate only, so the Will made by her, upon foundation of which the plaintiffs brought their action must fail. It found, that total consideration for the Conveyance was Kalidashi's money; the disposition the Conveyance Ext. I made, was not absolute interest in favour of Kalidashi. So that grant did not offend Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 6 ) MR. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that having found that the consideration for the conveyance was Kalidashi's money, the court of appeal below erred in holding that Kalidashi by a ?self-denying ordinance? limited the right, title and inte