A restricted estate created prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will not be enlarged into full ownership by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT-3 is the appellant. Plaintiff's case is as follows: The disputed property belonged to late Madhu Mohapatra. Madhu adopted late Antarjyami, father of the plaintiff. Paluni, widow of Madhu, died on August 21, 1957. During the settlement operations of 1916, Paluni and Antarjyami did not pull on well. Palu'ni claimed maintenance. The matter was decided in her favour by the Superintendent of the ex-State of Nayagarh. In Miscellaneous case No. 27 of 1916-17, the Deputy commissioner of Angul passed the following order:

"i dismiss the appeal and direct that the land be divided into two equal shares. Half will be recorded in the name of Paluni as her maintenance. She will enjoy the land until her death. The other half will be recorded in the name of Antarjyami with Paluni as guardian. She will have full right to arrange for the cultivation of her share of the land until her death. "

After this decision, there existed good feelings between Paluni and Antarjyami and they continued to live together. Paluni and the plaintiff also lived together after the death of Antarjyami. On February 28, 1957 she executed a registered sale deed (Ex. A) in respect of the disputed land in favour of defendant No. 1 who is her brother's daughter's son. The sale was without consideration and legal necessity. Defendant No. 1 transferred the very property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 by a registered sale deed (Ex. B ). On April 16, 1957, and by another registered sale deed (Ex. B/1) in favour of defendant-3 on the same day. These sales are also without consideration and legal necessity. As defendants 2 and 3 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, the suit has been filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The suit was filed on May 16, 1958 after the death of Paluni.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS contested the suit challenging the adoption of Antarjyami and asserting that Paluni was the owner of the suit property in exclusive possession. The sales were for consideration and Paluni became full owner after 1956.

( 3 ) THE Courts below concurrently found that Antarjyami was adopted by Madhu, that the disputed property was separately possessed by Paluni towards her maintenance and that there was consideration for the sale deeds (Exs. A, B and b/l ).

The alienees did not press the question that the sales were for legal necessity. The finding must therefore be that the sales were without legal necessity.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that after the passing of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) Paluni was a full owner and thand alienations being for consideration were valid and that the plaintiff cannot question the alienations. The lower Appellate Court held that Paluni was not full owner and that her rights were restricted under the decree passed by the Deputy commissioner which, according to him, was a Civil Court, and as the sales were not for legal necessity the alienations were not binding on the plaintiff, the next reversioner. He accordingly decreed the suit subject to the condition that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 600/- to defendants 2 and 3 and another sum of rs. 100/- to defendant No. 3, which were the consideration under sale deeds (Exs. B and B/1 ).

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 has filed the second appeal against the appellate decree declaring that the alienations were not binding on the plaintiff while the plaintiff has filed a cross-objection against that part of the decree directing refund of consideration.

( 6 ) MR. Misra contends (i) that the decree of the Deputy Commissioner, Angul, is not a decree or order of the Civil Court, and (ii) that under the orders of the deputy Commissioner the only restricted right created was that the widow would enjoy the disputed land till her death and there was no express prohibition against alienations by the widow. As the restriction under Section 14 (2) of the Act