S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. In this appeal, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants who are the widow and son of late Col. B.R. Dewan question the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court (dated 11.10.2013)which held that the first Appellant (widow) was not the absolute owner of the suit property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, in view of the statement and admission of the defendants (i.e the daughter and her husband) the widow’s right to receive rents paid by tenants of the second floor, during her lifetime was acknowledged and a consequential decree made.

2. The facts of the case are that D-246, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereafter “the suit property”), was a self-acquired property of Col.(Retd.) B.R. Dewan. By his will dated 24.06.1984 he bequeathed life interest in the suit property in favour of the first Appellant (his widow) to hold it as a trustee on behalf of the legal owners (the second Appellant-hereafter “the son” or “Ranvir” and the first Respondent, herafter “the daughter” or “Rashmi”) and income arising during her lifetime was to be enjoyed by her. She was also entitled to evict the tenants and or create new tenancies of her own will in the capacity of her being the owner till her demise after which the legal ownership would vest with Ranvir and Rashmi of their respective portions.Thereafter, the ground floor was to be left to Ranvir Dewan and first floor to the daughter, Rashmi. The relevant extracts of the Will are as follows:

“…After my demise, Ranvir Dewari and Rashmi Khanna would be owners but upto the death of my wife – Pritam Dewan - who has served and cared about me throughout my life, would first be entitled to live and/ reside in the House D-246 Defence Colony, New Delhi, free of rent and also enjoy all the Income from the tenants (presently GSIC) She would also be entitled to dispose of the tenants and/or take, new tenants of her own will in the capacity of her being the owner till her demise. Legal Ownership would vest the Ranvir Dewan and Rashmi Khanna of their respective portions. In short Mrs. Pritam Dewan would hold life interest in my house property D-246, Defence Colony, New Delhi, as trustee on behalf of the legal owners and the Income arising during her life time will be assessed in her hands and only after her demise would the income be that of the legal owners. For, all purposes Ranvir Dewan and Rashmi Khanna would be assessed to Wealth after my demise…”

3. Before the probate of the said Will was granted, a family settlement was entered between the parties (i.e. the mother, the son and daughter) under which the a residential plot at R-7/189, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad was settled as the exclusive property of Brig. Ashok Dewan, the son of late Col. B.R. Dewan from his first wife. Certain other payments were also made to him and Smt. Kamla Dewan.

4. To carry out the repairs of the 45 year old suit property, a Collaboration Agreement was entered into with a builder enabling construction of a basement, ground floor and two floors above it, on the suit property. A family settlement dated 23.07.2008 (hereinafter referred as “the family settlement”) was also entered into between the parties which granted rights of the entire basement and ground floor along with 40% freehold rights in favour of the son. The entire second floor including roof and the right to build and construct the third floor with her own funds was given to the daughter along with 30% of the freehold shares. The balance 30% was to vest with the builder. The said settlement also recorded that the life interest in the entire property was to remain with the mother, i.e. the first appellant.

5. After the cancellation of the first collaboration agreement, another collaboration agreement dated 17.12.2008 (hereinafter referred as collaboration agreement) was signed with Chandan & Chandan Enterprises. In terms of the collaboration agreement a sum of Rs.  1 crore was to be paid by the builder to the