The court ruled that property devolved exclusively to the male heir after the mother's death before the Hindu Succession Act, invalidating claims of the female heir based on pre-Act rights.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Ownership and Transfer of Property - The court held that the properties devolved solely on the son after the mother's death, rejecting the daughter's claim based on pre-Act rights. (Paras 12-14, 15)

(B) Authority of Gift Deeds - A donee cannot receive a better title than their donor. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over property originally owned by the plaintiff's grandmother, which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased. Contesting claims were made by the plaintiff and defendant No.12 citing ancestral rights and gift deeds. (Para 4-5)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the plaintiff's ownership over the properties and confirmed the right to use the water from the well by the public. (Paras 8-11)

Issues: The main issues included the rightful ownership of property following the death of the original owner and the validity of the gift deed in favour of defendant No.12. (Paras 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that under the Hindu Succession Act, the properties devolved to the son, rejecting the daughter’s claims due to the timing of death relative to the Act's enactment, emphasizing the limitations of gift deeds. (Para 12-15)

Result: Second appeal dismissed; First Appellate Court's decision confirmed.

Table of Content
1. background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. issues framed in context of ownership. (Para 6 , 9)
3. trial court's findings and reasoning. (Para 8 , 10)
4. legal principles regarding property devolution. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. dismissal of the second appeal. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred against the partially reversing judgment.

2. The appellant in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant No.12 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.250 of 1981 and respondent No.12 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.61 of 1994-I.

The respondent No.1 in this second appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.250 of 1981 and appellant before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.61 of 1994-I.

The respondent Nos.2 to 11 in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 9 & 11 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.250 of 1981 and respondent Nos.1 to 9 & 11 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.61 of 1994-I.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this 2^nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.250 of 1981 against the defendants (appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 11 in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

4. As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, the properties described in Schedule ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ of the plaint are the suit properties. Schedule ‘Kha’ properties are the part of the Schedule ‘Ka’ properties. The suit properties originally belonged to the grandmother of the plaintiff i.e. Saratmani Dasi. Saratmani Dasi had purchased the same in her name. For which, the suit properties were the purchased properties of Saratmani Dasi.

Saratmani Dasi died in the year 1932 leaving behind his son Anil Singh (father of the plaintiff and one daughter Haramani). After the death of Saratmani Dasi, the suit properties left by her devolved upon her son Anil Singh (father of the plaintiff). The father of the plaintiff i.e. Anil Singh sold the suit properties to the plaintiff by executing and registering the sale deed dated 03.09.1971 (Ext.2) for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. For which, the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties. There was/is a well on the ‘Kha’ Schedule suit property, which is the part of ‘Ka’ Schedule suit properties. As such, the plaintiff is the owner of the entire ‘Ka’ Schedule suit property including the ‘Kha’ Schedule well. For which, the well situated on ‘Kha’ Schedule suit property is the personal and private well of the plaintiff.

When, the defendant No.3 (elected councilor of Ward No.9 of Balasore Municipality) having his previous enmity with him (plaintiff) falsely claimed that, ‘Kha’ Schedule suit well belong to the Municipality and cut the fence around the well, then he (plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.250 of 1981 against the defendants including the Balasore Municipality and the villagers of Damadorpur and Manikhamb praying for declaration of his title over ‘Ka’ Schedule suit properties including ‘Kha’ Schedule well and for confirmation of his possession thereon, in alternative recovery possession, if he (plaintiff) found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit by the defendants and to injunct the defendants permanently from creating any sort of disturbances in his peaceful possession over the properties of both the Schedule, as the villagers of Damodarpur and Manikhamb (defendant No.2) are trying to create disturbances in his peaceful possession over the suit properties.

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.250 of 1981, the defendant No.9 (father of the defendant Nos.12 as well as brother of the father of the plaintiff) filed his written statement denying the above allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint taking his stands specifically that,