S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 extinguishes the estate, whether 'limited estate' or 'widow's estate' in Hindu Law, and only applies to property possessed by a female Hindu when the Act came into force.

1. The substantial question of law on which notice was issued in this second appeal is whether S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 can apply to a case where a widow has assigned her interest in the husband's property prior to the commencement of the Act.

2. defendants 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 are the appellants. The suit was filed by two plaintiffs for partition and recovery of their 1/4 share in B schedule property. The trial court granted a preliminary decree and the appellate court confirmed the same with slight modifications.

3. B schedule property belonged to Kunhipennu and her sons Raman, Koman and Kuttippayi. Koman died in 1943. Admittedly, he had 1/4 share. He left his widow Ammalu and two daughters Paru and Narayani. Kunhipennu died in 1948 and Narayani died in 1957. Paru is the 1st plaintiff. Second plaintiff Leela is daughter of Narayani. Raman died leaving defendants 1 to 7 as bis heirs. Right of Kuttippayi was assigns d in favour of the 8th defendant. Ammalu, the mother of the first plaintiff and widow of Koman, died in 1962. These facts are not disputed.

4. As the heirs of Koman, plaintiffs claimed 1/4th share. During her life time, Ammalu assigned her right to her husband's brother Raman as if she was the sole heir of Koman and the full owner of his 1/4th share. The case of the plaintiffs is that she was only a limited owner and therefore she could have conveyed only her limited estate. But the appellants contended that she was the full owner and Raman got the full right. The case of the plaintiffs is that after the death of Ammalu, they got the share of Koman as reversioners but the appellants would contend that even if Ammalu is only a limited owner, when the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956, her right got matured into full right under S.14. On this basis they contended that under the principle of estoppel feeding title as embodied in S.43 of the Transfer of Property Act her assignment operates on the full right at the option of the transferee so that there is nothing for the plaintiffs to inherit. They have also another contention that the parties are followers of modified form of Hindu Mitakshara Law by which daughters given away in marriage on payment of streedhsnam are not entitled to inherit the properties of the father. In that view also they contended that the plaintiffs have no right because admittedly 1st plaintiff and the mother of the second plaintiff were married away even during the life time of Koman.

5. There is no dispute between the parties that Ammalu had only a limited interest in the estate of her husband which was liable to terminate on her death. So also it is not disputed that sons and daughters are the heirs to the exclusion of the widow. Ammalu executed Ext. BI assignment on 8-1-1950 assigning her right to her husband's brother Raman as if she was the sole heir of Koman and full owner of 1/4th share. She died only in 1962 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. S.14 of that Act says that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. The object of the section is to extinguish the estate whether "limited estate" or "widow's estate" in Hindu Law and to make a Hindu woman, who under the old law would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property with all powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. But it did not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did cot in fact possess any vestige of title. The expression "possessed" appearing in the initial part of S.14 appears to have been deliberately used. The change intended to be made in the limited connotation of widow's estate or limited estate and the clear deviation from the old law indicates that it is intended to be converted into absolute ownership only where it existed whe