A transfer of property made in recognition of a pre-existing right to maintenance is not an instrument under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and does not prevent the transferee from becoming the absolute owner of the property.

1. This regular second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have dismissed their suit for declaration to claim that the land in dispute transferred by Shrimati Patto, defendant-respondent No. 1 (since dead and her name struck off from the array of respondents) in favour of the contesting defendant-respondent was without legal necessity, illegal and ineffective against the reversionary rights of the plaintiff-appellants. That claim is reiterated in the present appeal. Facts giving rise thereto are mentioned hereafter.

2. A parcel of land in village Tigrana Tahsil Bhiwani, District Hissar, was owned by one Gopala. On his death sometimes after 1905 but before 1914, his estate was mutated in favour of his widow Shrimati Bujhi. Gopala was a Bhardwaj Brahmin, a high caste Hindu. On 14-4-1911, the Patwari of the village recorded a mutation suggesting transference of the estate of Shrimati Bujhi in favour of her widowed daughter Shrimati Patto. It came to be recorded on her statement to the effect that she had only one daughter Shrimati Patto and who was a widow. It was further stated that from her in-laws side, there was no one to look after her. She expressed the wish that her share out of the joint land be mutated in the name of Shrimati Patto so that she could maintain herself comfortably. It was also stated therein that after the death of Shrimati Patto, the reversioners would be entitled to the estate and that the former will not be entitled to sell or mortgage the land and would only be entitled to maintain herself out of it during her lifetime. This statement was supported by Pat Ram, Main Raj, Mohan Lal, besides Shrimati Pauji out of the collaterals of Gopala. Thereupon, the Revenue Officer concerned sanctioned the mutation on 16-4-1911 after verifying the facts stated by the widow with particular emphasis on the fact that Shrimati Patto was destitute. At the time of the mutation, two other reversioners namely Sis Ram and Shrimati Dharkan besides Mam Raj and Mohan Lal also supported the mutation. They readily agreed to the mutation but required it subjected to the clog that Patto would hold the estate for her lifetime and maintain herself but would not be entitled to sell or mortgage the land. This mutation is Exhibit P. 2 on the file and was the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs, since Shrimati Patto, after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 sold the land to the contesting respondents for a sum of Rs. 5,600/- vide registered deed, copy of which is Exhibit P. 3 on the file. The land at that time measured 35 kanals 4 marlas fully described in the plaint as post-consolidation fields. Since there was an apparent violation of the terms of mutation, Exhibit P. 2 the plaintiff-appellants filed the instant suit for declaration, out of which this appeal has arisen, to safeguard their reversionary rights operative after the death of Shrimati Patto. The suit was contested by the vendees. They pleaded that Shrimati Patio had become the absolute owner by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thus the reversioners had no interest in the land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether Shrimati Patto was a limited owner and her right had been curtailed as alleged? If so, to what effect?

2. Have the plaintiffs locus standi to sue?

3. Whether the suit land is ancestral qua the plaintiffs?

4. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether Shrimati Patto was absolute owner?

5. Relief?

3. Under issue No. 3, the trial Court found that the land was ancestral qua the plaintiffs. The learned Judge chose to rely upon some admissions suggestedly coming forth from the witnesses. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. Under issues Nos. 1 and 4, it was held that Shrimati Patto had become an absolute owner of the property in dispute and thus the plaintiffs were held disentitled to challe