LODHA, J.—The plaintiff-respondent Shanker Lal filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against Ramkaran Lal (who died during the pendency of this litigation and is red-resented by his legal representatives Smt. Gaumati and others (appellants) for declaring that the will Ex. 3, dated 3-2-1961 made by Smt. Kalawati is ineffective against the plaintiff and further that a decree for possession of the ground-floor of the house and other movable property, ornaments etc. bequeathed by Smt. Kalawati to Ramkaran Lal be granted in his favour. The trial court decreed the suit for possession of the ground floor of the house and its judgment and decree were affirmed by the District Judge, Bharatpur, and consequently the legal representatives of Ram Karan Lal have filed this appeal.

2. A few relevant facts may now be stated. One Jagan Nath had three sons Chaturbhuj, Ramkaranlal (defendant) and Shanker Lal (plaintiff). Chaturbhuj died in St. 1967, i.e. in the year 1910/11 A.D. leaving behind his widow Smt. Kalawati but no issue. Ramkaranlal went in adoption to one Ramchander some time in S. 1973 i.e. 1916-17 A. D. As already stated above, on 3.2.1961 Smt. Kalawati executed a will of the property in question in favour of Ramkaranlal and died about a month later. On the death of Smt. Kalawati, Ramkaranlal took possession of the property willed to him by Smt. Kalawati and thereupon Shankerlal filed the present suit on the ground that Ramkaranlal had gone in adoption to another family, and was not entitled to get any share in the family of his birth and further that Smt. Kalawati had no right to will away the property in question. The suit was resisted by Ramkaranlal mainly on the ground that Smt. Kalawati became absolute owner of the property by virtue of S. 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act No. 31 of 1956 which came into force on 17-6-1956. The court below held that since Smt. Kalawati did not acquire even limited ownership to the property in question on the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) she could not become full owner thereof and consequently the will executed by her in respect of the property in question was not valid.

3. The only point for decision in this case is as to whether on the coming into force of the Act Smt. Kalawati became an absolute owner of the property in question. If she did, the suit is liable to dismissed and if she did not, it has been rightly decreed by the courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that even the plaintiff has admitted in paras Nos. 2 and 6 of the plaint that on the death of Chaturbhuj, husband of Smt. Kalawati, the latter got a right of residence and maintenance out of the property of Jagannath Prasad, father of her deceased husband. He has further invited my attention to the statement of the plaintiff Shankerlal, P.W. 1, Shankerlal has stated that Smt. Kalawati used to reside in the portion of the house which had been willed by her D W. 1 Ramkaranlal has also stated that the disputed premises which had been willed away to him had been continuously in possession of Smt. Kalawati for a period about 50 years from the date of the death of her husband to the date of her own death. On the basis of the aforesaid averments in the pleadings and the evidence, the learned counsel has argued that the property in question was possessed by Smt. Kalawati on the date of coming into force of the Act and that the same had been acquired by her in lieu of maintenance. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Rani Bai vs. Yadunandan (l) and B.B. Patil vs. Gangabai(2). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the property in question was never acquired by Smt. Kalawati and she had not a vestige of title to it. The house in question was given to her only for residence and a person who had only a right of residence in the property cannot be said to have acquired the property. In other words his cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document