The main legal point established in the judgment is that a female Hindu possessing property under limited rights, as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not have the right to sell or alienate the property.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

1) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging therein the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 72-A/2011 dated 16.09.2011, whereby the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II Kurud, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2005 dated 30.04.2010 has been set aside and findings have been reversed.

2) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court ignoring the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 29A/72 dated 11.08.1976 by holding that Shyam Bai was the sole owner of the suit property in view of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?”

3) The facts of the present case are that earlier a Civil Suit No. 29-A/72 was filed between the parties claiming therein partition of agricultural land and house and for possession before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dhamtari wherein the parties entered into a settlement and a compromise decree was passed on 11.08.1976. The suit property was partitioned between the parties and 1/4th share was given to defendant No. 1 – Shyam Bai to enjoy the fruits of the property during her lifetime and thereafter the property had to be divided between the remaining parties. Defendant No.1 sold part of the property i.e. Survey Nos. 1354/3 and 1467/3 total admeasuring 1.61 hectares through a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2005 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, therefore, the plaintiffs herein filed a civil suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 14.06.2005 be declared null and void and for permanent injunction as the sale deed is hit by the compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 29-A/72 dated 16.08.1976. The defendants filed their written statements and stated that by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the defendants got exclusive rights over the property which includes the right to alienate the suit property. It was further pleaded that after partition, possession was handed over to defendant No.1 and the sale deed cannot be questioned on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned trial Court framed various issues and held that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is null and void being hit by compromise judgment and decree dated 16.08.1976. It is further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of decree of mandatory injunction. An appeal was preferred by the defendants and the learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2011 reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the ground that by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, defendant No.1 became absolute owner of the property, therefore, she had right to alienate the property. It was also observed that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is null and void. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal challenging therein the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that undisputedly, the compromise decree was passed between the parties in Civil Suit No. 29-A/72 dated 11.08.1976 wherein limited right was given to defendant No. 1 to enjoy the fruits of the subject property during her lifetime, but defendant No.1 misused the liberty and sold the property through registered sale deed dated 14.06.2005 to defendants No. 2 and 3.

5) In support thereof, he would place strong reliance upon the matter of Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike and Others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 75 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue held