Female Hindu creating mortgage over the property.

This is an appeal arising from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in A.S. No. 21 of 1954, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Dindigul, in O.S. No. 72 of 1953.

Kuppanna Pillai, Ammayappa Pillai and Arumugham Pillai were three brothers who effected a partition 25 years ago. The lands in suit fell to the share of Arumugham Pillai. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of Kuppanna Pillai. Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the sons of Ammayappa Pillai. Arumugham Pillai died in 1949, leaving defendant 1, his widow, as his heir. Defendant 1 has mortgaged the suit lands in favour of defendant 2 by a deed, dated 3rd February, 1953 for Rs. 2,500.

It is in these circumstances that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for a declaration that the mortgage deed, dated 3rd February, 1953, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 is not valid and binding upon them, the reversioners, beyond the lifetime of the widow, on the ground that there was no necessity to mortgage the lands and that the mortgage is not supported by consideration.

Defendant 1 remained ex parte. Defendant 2 contested the suit on the ground that the mortgage was validly executed by the widow for purposes binding upon the -estate.

The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that one portion of the mortgage amount was binding upon the reversioners and that the other portion was not binding upon them. He gave a declaration to that effect. There was an appeal therefrom and the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree and the judgment of the learned District Munsif. Therefore, the defeated alienee has preferred this Second Appeal.

A preliminary point was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely) that by reason of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956), which is retrospective in so far as it enlarges a Hindu woman’s limited estate into an absolute estate even in respect of property inherited or held by her as a limited owner before the Act came into force, this reversioner is nowhere now in the picture and cannot obtain the declaration asked for.

It has now become well-settled law that section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is retrospective, secondly, that it enlarges limited estates into absolute estates ; and thirdly, that it applies to all cases, where the widow, as in this case was “possessed” of the property in controversy when the Act came into force.

The opening words “any property possessed by a female Hindu” obviously mean that to come within the purview of the section, the property must be in the possession of the female concerned at the date of the commencement of the Act. They clearly contemplate the female’s possession when the Act came into force. That possession might have been either actual or constructive or in any form, recognised by law, but unless the female Hindu,whose limited estate in the disputed property is claimed to have been transformed into absolute estate under this particular section, was at least in such possession taking the word “possession” in its widest connotation, when the Acts came into force, the section would not apply: Gosta v. Hondas1. The word “possession” in this section refers to possession on the date when the Act came into force. The possession need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation, but may be possession in law. The possession of a licensee, lessee or mortgagee from the female owner or the possession of a guardian or trustee or agent of the female owner would be her possession for the purpose of this section. The word “possessed” is used in this section in a broad sense and in the context “possession” means “the state of owning or having in one’s hands or power.” It includes possession by receipt of rents and profits. Where, however, before the Act came into force, the female owner had sold away the property in which she had only a limited interest and put the vendee in possession, she should in no sense be regarded as “po