Property allotted to a female Hindu on partition is not 'acquired property' within the meaning of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, Section 14(1) applies, giving the female Hindu absolute title to the property.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the administration of the estate of Gopal Chandra Nawan who died in 1899 without leaving a male issue. Prosadmoni, the only daughter of Gopal inherited the estate. In a suit for partition of the Nawan estate, being Suit No. 1970 of 1933 Gopal's share in the estate was allotted to Prosadmoni by the final decree passed in 1949. The pro-perties allotted to Prosadmoni under the decree were to be held by her as a Hindu daughter, in a suit instituted by the next reversions against Prosadmoni in 1948. being Suit No. 3502 of 1948, for waste of the estate in her hand, a consent decree was passed whereby it was provided that moneys of the estate invested or otherwise lying in her hand were to be held by her as a 'hindu daughter'. On October 19 1959, Prosadmoni died intestate leaving her surviving the defendant Tara Sundari as her only heir. The plaintiffs claiming to be some of the reversioners of Gopal have instituted this suit impleading Tara Sundari and the remaining reversioners as party defendants. Their case is that Tara Sundari is not an heir of Gopal and the estate now belongs to the reversioners of Gopal. It is also alleged that the defendant Tara Sundari is wrongfully denying the plaintiffs' title and has claimed to be absolutely entitled to the estate as the heir of Prosadmoni.

( 2 ) THERE are three written statements on record, one Jointly filed by the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and another filed jointly by the defendants Nos. 7 and 8. All these defendants support the plaintiffs' case. The only contesting defendant is Tara Sundari defendant No. 1, who in her written statement sets up her exclusive title to the estate in denial of the title of other parties. It is contended by her that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Prosadmoni became entitled to the estate of Gopal in absolute title and on the death of Prosadmoni, she as the only heir of Prosadmoni is exclusively entitled to the estate. The reversioners of Gopal after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1958 ceased to have any interest or title in the estate left by Gopal and inherited by Prosadmoni. Tara Sundari is the only defendant contesting the plaintiffs' claim and her submission is that the suit must be dismissed with costs.

( 3 ) AT the trial the brief of documents disclosed by the parties have been marked as exhibit by consent, formal proof having been dispensed with. No oral evidence has been tendered by any of the parties.

( 4 ) THE decision in this case will depend on the construction of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act which reads as follows :" (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation--In this sub-section, 'property' includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to any properly acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. "

( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS and the supporting defendants contend that Sub-section (2) will apply to the facts of the instant case and in consequence Sub-section (1) will not apply. The result is that the reversioners of Gopal are entitled to the estate under the old Hindu Law. The contention of the defendant No. 1, Tara Sundari, is that Sub-section (2) d