The limited interest of a Hindu female under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act ripens into a full estate by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, entitling the female to claim partition and allotment of shares.

Shamsuddin, J.

1. Defendants 3 to 8 are the appellants. Plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) filed the suit for partition claiming 5/12 shares in the plaint B schedule property. Defendants 3 to 8 contended that since 1st plaintiffs husband Choyikutty died in 1949 without male issues his right over the property reverted to the coparcenary consisting of Thamaran alias Pachu, Ganapathy alias Appu and his male children who are defendants 4 to 7 and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property.

2. It is not disputed that the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Choyikutty, father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of 1st plaintiff died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. Contention of the plaintiffs is that by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (for short the Act) the right which devolved on the 1st plaintiff after death of her husband has blossomed into full right and so the plaintiffs cannot to denied of their share. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendants that the first plaintiff had no possession in the property and so S.14(1) has no application.

3. Both the Courts below held that the first plaintiff was having constructive possession of the property. The lower appellate Court held that though the first plaintiff has not exercised any act of possession either independently or jointly with others the fact that she has been in constructive possession cannot be disputed in view of her statement that she was paid money by the other members of the family and the further fact that the expenses in connection with the marriage of her daughters were met by her husband's father. That apart, there is no evidence on the side of the contesting defendants to show that the first plaintiff was kept out of possession or that there was ouster.

4. Defendants' plea that the plaintiffs cannot claim the benefit of S.14(1) of the Act as the first plaintiff was never in possession of the property cannot be sustained in view of the findings of the Courts below to the contrary. S.3(1) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act provides that when a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu Law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be entitled in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son. S.3(2) provides that when a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had. S.3(3) provides that any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this Section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Women's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. This Act confers new rights on widows in modification of the previous law as found in the texts and interpreted by various judicial pronouncements. In the case of a Mitakshara joint family the widow takes the place of her husband.

5. After the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act a widow who had limited right under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act becomes a full owner. As the first plaintiff had obtained limited right in her husband's estate and as that right has blossomed into a full right in view of S.14(1) of Hindu Succession Act the defendants' contention that plaintiffs are not entitled to partition is not tenable.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on Pachi Krishnamma v. Kumaran Krishnan (AIR 1982 Kerala 137) and contended that a widow not in possession of any property at the commencement of the Act is not entitled to claim benefits under S.14(1) of the Act. The above ruling only states that a widow who