A Hindu widow's estate in property gifted to her daughter, which reverts to her upon the daughter's death without issue, can become absolute under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if she is in lawful possession of the property when the Act comes into force.

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs Hari Ram and Ram Kishan from the decision dated 9th March, 1970 of the Additional District Judge, Kangra, wherein, agreeing with the decision of the Sub-Judge, Kangra, he has dismissed their suit for recovery of possession over 114 Kanals and 13 Marias of land situate in Tika Ghatota of Tehsil Nurpur.

2. According to plaintiffs, the disputed land originally belonged to one Bihari Rajput of Tehsil Nurpur. He died, leaving his widow Banti who gifted the disputed land under two deeds of gift dated 5-10-1938 and 25-11-1938 in favour of her only daughter Kaushalya. After the death of Kaushalya in 1940, her husband Harbans Singh got possession over the land and the mutation No. 125 was made in his favour in the revenue papers. In the year 1943 Hari Ram and Ram Kishan, present plaintiffs, filed a suit before the Sub-Judge, Kangra, for a declaration that they were reversioners of Banti who was a limited owner and would be entitled to get the disputed land from Harbans Singh after her death. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit on 14-10-1944 (Ex. DE) holding that Kaushalya was the only heir of Banti and therefore the two gifts in her favour amounted to acceleration of succession. Therefore, according to the learned Sub-Judge, no alienation was involved and hence the plaintiffs could not file a suit for declaration although they were reversioners of Bihari the deceased husband of Banti. The plaintiffs came in appeal before the learned District Judge and by his judgment dated 26-7-1945 (Ex. P-7), he allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the learned Sub-Judge, holding that the plaintiffs could claim to be heirs of the donor Banti and as such were reversioners of Bihari. Therefore, the plaintiffs could be preferred as against Harbans Singh who could not be the heir to Bihari. The suit was accordingly decreed for a declaration that the reversioners of Bihari would be entitled to get possession of the disputed land from Harbans Singh after the death of Banti. The defendants of that case came in appeal before the Punjab High Court and by his decision dated 27-6-1947 (Ex. P-6), the learned Judge held that neither heirs of Kaushalya nor heirs of Banti were to be taken regard of. Rather the two Courts were to consider as to whether the plaintiffs were heirs of Bihari in preference over Harbans Singh. That being so, the plaintiffs were reversioners and could obtain a decree for declaration that the heirs of Bihari, whosoever these are, would be entitled to get possession of the property after the death of Banti. The suit was thus finally decreed on 27-6-1947.

3. Subsequently Harbans Singh being the defendant of the suit filed in 1943 and already held not to be entitled to the property after the death of Banti, reconveyed the same to Banti on 28th October, 1950 of which the mutation (Ex. DD) was effected in the revenue papers. Thereafter on 18-9-1961 Banti again gifted the disputed property in favour of Harbans Singh and his second wife Dina Devi, who are the two defendants in the present suit.

4. Banti died sometimes in 1965, and a few months after her death the plaintiffs Hari Ram and Ram Kishan filed the present suit against Harbans Singh and Dina Devi defendants, for recovery of possession over the disputed property which formed part of the gift by Banti on 18-9-1961 in their favour. The plaintiffs' case in that plaint was that in view of the decree obtained by them in 1947, the gift could not be legally made by Banti in 1961 in favour of the defendants. According to that decree, according to the plaintiffs, the property was to revert back to the heirs of Bihari after her death and therefore whatever subsequent gift she made was subject to that condition. The plaintiffs also urged that the parties were governed by Kangra custom of succession. It is significant that no other plea was taken by the plaintiffs, although at a later stage they were permitted to co