Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not benefit an alienee who purchased the property from a limited owner before the commencement of the Act.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant before us. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff as reversioner for recovery of khas possession of the suit property upon declaration of his title to the property and right to possess it after the death of the limited owner from whom the defendant is alleged to have been purchased the property.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case may briefly be stated as follows :--The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's great grand father Dinanath Sen Mondal who died leaving two sons Indranarayan and Suryyanarayan. Indranarayan died leaving his only son Abinash and Suryyanarayan died leaving his only son Ramgati. Between these two sons there was an amicable partition. Ramgati died about 24 years back leaving his widow Matibala. Consequently, Matibala acquired a widow's estate in respect of the property left by her husband. Motibala died on December 22, 1967. Abinash died leaving the plaintiff as the only son and heir. After the death of Matibala the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff as the sole reversioner. Though Matibala had no right to transfer the property left by her husband in order to deprive the plaintiff, the defendant by exercising undue influence upon Matibala surreptitiously obtained a fraudulent deed of sale from Matibala in her favour in respect of the suit property on April 22, 1955 without payment of consideration and got the property recorded in her name in the R. S. Record. The plaintiff came to learn about the fraudulent transfer on 22nd January 1962. It is the plaintiff's case that transfer was made without any legal necessity. After Matibala's death, the property was to revert back to the plaintiff as the sole re-versioner of Ramgati and the defendant had no right to possess it. As the defendant was illegally possessing the suit property, the plaintiff was compelled to start the present action.

( 3 ) THE case of the defendant is that the suit property did not belong to Dinanath but to Ramgati, that the plaintiff was not the reversioner of Ramgati, that the sale deed was a bona fide transaction and was for legal necessity, that the price as stated in the kobala was duly paid to Motibala and that the plaintiff was aware of the transaction from the very beginning. The defendant before her purchase made bona fide enquiries about the legal necessities of Matibala and was satisfied that those existed. That being so, the defendant acquired an absolute and indefeasible title to the suit property and the plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was the sole reversioner of the last male owner Ramgati, that the sale deed was a collusive transaction made without any legal necessity and without consideration and that the plaintiff was completely ignorant of the sale. It was also held that the defendant had no title to the suit property and no right to possess the same. The learned Subordinate Judge further found that since Matibala parted with her title and possession before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force her limited ownership in the suit property did not ripen into an absolute ownership and, therefore, the property was to revert back to the plaintiff after her death. In that view of his finding the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit granting plaintiff's prayer for recovery of khas possession except plot No. 1526 which had vested in the State. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge agreed with the trial Court that the plaintiff is the sole reversioner of Ramgati. He also agreed with the trial Court that the sale was made without any legal necessity, and that the transaction was a collusive one. But at the same time the learned Additional District Judge held that the sale was real and for consideration and the defendant acquired a valid title to the suit property under the same. The lower appellate Court below fu