1. This appeal has been placed before us on a reference made by R. Bhaskaran, J.

2. The question that is posed for consideration is whether limited interest of a daughter would get enlarged to full right after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when a male Hindu following the Mitakshara law died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act?

3. Suit was instituted for partition of 6/ 7 share in the plaint schedule property and for recovery of plaintiff's share from defendants 1 and 2 and for mesne profits. Plaint schedule property is having only an extent of 12 cents belonged to one Madan Bhagavathy along with the adjacent property having a total extent of 20 cents. The property was self acquired property of Madan Bhagavathy as per Ext. A2 dated 19.9.1064 (M.E.). Kunjan Pillai and Chempakakuty Amma were his children. Chempakakutty Amma sold the entire 30 cents of property inclusive of the plaint schedule property to third defendant, vide Ext. B3 sale deed dated 19.9.1959. Third defendant has subsequently sold 8 3/4 cents of property as per Ext. B2 dated 17.5.1974. He also sold another 11/2 cents as per Ext. B2 dated 16.12.1974 in favour of the first defendant. Chempakakutty Amma and her brother Kunjan Pillai later executed settlement deed Ext. Al dated 19.11.1959 in favour of wife and children of Kunjan Pillai as well as the children by the two daughters of Kunjan Pillai. Plaint schedule property was settled in favour of fourth defendant and her children who are the plaintiffs in the suit. Third defendant is the husband of the fourth defendant should have been in possession of the property pursuant to such acquisition. Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in Eramma v. Veerupana (AIR 1996 SC 1879) and Mangal Singh v. Rattno (AIR 1967 SC 1786). Counsel also submitted that mere claim for maintenance does not attract S.14 of the Act. In A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1998 SC 1388) Apex Court held that right to claim maintenance cannot be equated with holding of the land. Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. K. Divakaran Nair placed reliance on Mulla's Principles of Hindu law, 15th Edition and contended that the daughter takes a limited interest in the estate of her father. Counsel also made reference to Tulsamma's case, supra. Counsel submitted that there is ample evidence in this case to show that Chempakakutty Amma was in possession of the property.

4. We may first examine the right of a daughter in respect of self acquired property of her father who died prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act in case where parties are followers of Mitakshara law. Answer to the above question depends upon the interpretation of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act is extracted below for easy reference.

14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. (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 the 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-s. (1) shall apply to any property 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."

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers upon female Hindu full rights of inheritance. Before t