Property acquired by a female Hindu at a partition or in lieu of right of maintenance is not a case under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the property devolves on the heirs of the husband.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal in forma pauperis. The suit was for partition of the disputed properties into two equal shares between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE suit properties belonged to the joint family consisting of the plaintiff, his father E. Surya Patra and brother E. Appana Patra. On a reference to arbitration for partition of the family properties, the Arbitrators passed an award allotting l/3rd share to each of the three male members of the family. The suit properties measuring 4. 80 acres were allotted to E. Appalamma, the step mother of E. Surya Patra for enjoyment during her lifetime in lieu of right of maintenance on condition that she would have no power of alienation and that after her death the properties would revert to E. Surya Patra and his heirs. A decree in terms of the award was passed by the Court on 7-4-25 vide Ext. 1. Sometime after the award, the plaintiff, his father and brother apprehended that Appalamma would transfer the entire suit properties to her son-in-law (defendant No. 4 ). In order to save the properties the plaintiff, his father and brother executed three nominal sale deeds in repect thereof in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 22-1-36, 18-2-36 and 11-5-36 -- vide Exts. A, B and C. The plaintiffs brother Appanna died in 1943 leaving behind him his son dukhishyam who is defendant No. 3 in the suit. On 3-3-58, defendant No. 2 sold away his half share in the suit properties to defendant No. 4 by the sale deed Ext, D. Appalamma died on 29-7-63. After her death, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 5 in respect of 0. 09 acre out of the suit lands. The plaintiff's contention is that the sale deeds -- Exts. A, B and c -- were sham and nominal transactions and that on the death of Appalamma the suit properties reverted to him and his nephew Dukhishyam (defendant No. 3 ). Upon these allegations, he filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 4 filed a joint written statement contending that the plaintiff, his brother and father had a vested interest in the suit properties and they conveyed good title under the sala deeds -- Exts. A. B and C --for valuable consideration.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 5 filed a separata written statement contending that hepurchased 9 cents of land from defendant No. 1 for valuable consideration and acquired good title to the same.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 6 is said to be a farm servant of defendant No. 4. He did not claim any interest in the suit properties.

( 6 ) THE suit proceeded ex parte against Defendants 2 and 3.

( 7 ) THE trial court, on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, came to hold that the sale deeds -- Exts. A, B and C -- were not sham and nominal transactions; that the plaintiff, his brother and father had contingent interest in the suit properties when they transferred the same to defendants 1 and 2; and that although after the death of Appalamma the suit properties reverted to the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, yet the transferees Were entitled to protection under Section 43 of the T. P. Act. Upon such findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

( 8 ) IN course of hearing of this appeal ft was conceded by the counsel for both the parties that the suit properties were given to Appalamma in lieu of maintenance and that she was in possession of the same till her death. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that under the terms of the award appalamma got a limited estate which was enlarged to full ownership at the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 9 ) SECTION 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides as follows:-

"section 14 (1 ). Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation -- In this sub-section, 'property'