The word 'acquired' in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has to be given a restricted meaning and would cover those cases only where the Hindu female had no interest previously in the property and it was for the first time by virtue of the gift, will or the other modes mentioned in this sub section that the property was acquired by her.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This order, will dispose of two connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 206 and 231 of 1961.

2. One Des Raj was the owner of 65 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land and a house in village Dharana. Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. On his death, the land was mutated in favour of his widow, Smt. Rajo. In November 1954. Ude Chand and others, who were the collaterals of Des Raj. brought a suit for possession of this property on the ground that Smt. Rajo had contracted a Karewa marriage with their brother Kesho Ram and had thus forfeited her rights in the property. The suit was resisted both by Smt. Rajo and Kesho Ram and they denied the alleged Karewa During the pendency of this suit, a compromise was effected between the parties on 17-6-1955. whereby Smt. Rajo was allowed to continue in possession of 40 bighas of land till her lifetime and after her death it had to go to the collaterals and Kesho Ram in equal shares The remaining land viz., 25 bighas 10 biswas. was to immediately pass on to the collaterals and Kesho Ram in equal shares. As regards the house, it was agreed that it belonged to Kesho Ram, Smt. Rajo was left with another residential house which was, however, not the subject matter of the suit, but it was settled that she would have only a life interest therein and after her death it would also go to the collaterals and Kesho Ram in equal shares. It was also provided in the compromise that Smt. Rajo would not have the right to alienate the land and the house in any manner. The Subordinate Judge, who was trying that suit, did not record the compromise in the form of a decree, but he passed an order on 17-6-1955 as follows:-

-

" According to the conditions of the compromise, which the parties will observe, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. The parties would bear their own costs."

This decree was followed by a mutation, which was sanctioned on 31-1-1966 in terms of this compromise. Thereafter, Smt. Rajo continued to remain in possession of the property, which had fallen to her share. In February, 1958 Smt Rajo filed a suit out of which the present appeals have arisen, for a declaration that she was the full owner of 40 bighas of land in her possession and not only the holder of a life eslate therein. She also claimed possession of 25 bighas and 10 biswas of land, which had been given to the collaterals, Ude Chand and others, and her allegations were that the compromise had been obtained from her by fraud and was, consequently, not binding on her. She had become an absolute owner of the property in dispute by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which had come into force on 17-6-1956.

3. The suit was resisted by Ude Chand and others, who pleaded, inter alia, that the compromise was duly executed between the parties in the previous case and was binding on Smt. Rajo.

4. The trial Court did not accept the plea of fraud and held that the compromise in the previous litigation between the parties was binding upon Smt. Rajo. It was held that she had become a full owner of 40 bighas of land in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Regarding the rest of the property, which had passed on to the collaterals before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the suit was dismissed.

5. Against this decision, both the parties filed appeals, which were disposed of by the learned District Judge, Rohtak. He held that the compromise required compulsory registration and the same being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence and could not pass any title to the defendants. The plea of fraud set up by Smt. Rajo was rejected. It was also held that Smt. Rajo had become the full owner of 40 bighas of land by virtue, of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. It was further found that she was entitled to gel back from Ude Chand and others 25 bighas and 10 biswas of land purported to have been transferred by her in their favour under the compromise On these finding