Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants full ownership to a female Hindu who possesses property, regardless of when it was acquired, unless the property was acquired through a gift, will, or other instrument that prescribes a restricted estate.

1. The property in dispute consisting of agricultural land measuring 700 bighas kham, originally belonged to one Ram Nath. On his death, his son Hari Singh succeeded to it. On the latters dying issueless, his mother Shrimati Toti got life estate therein. The mutation, however, was effected by the revenue authorities in favour of the reversioners of Hari Singh. That necessitated the filling of a suit by Toti for a declaration that she was in possession of the property with life interest therein. It was incorrect as alleged by the reversioners, that she had remarried and thus lost her rights in the said property.

2. The suit was contested by the reversioners on the main plea that since Toti had remarried one Duni, therefore, she had lost all her rights in t he property left by Hari Singh.

3. On 18th October, 1918. Totis suit was decreed and it was held that she was in possession of the property and that she had not remarried Duni.

4. Against this decision, the collaterals went in appeal and there a compromise was effected between the parties. According to it, Toti got 150 Bighas kham in lieu of maintenance, but it was clearly said that she would not alienate the said land in any manner. The rest of the land, according to the compromise was to got to the reversioners.

5. Thereafter three alienations were made by Toti. One was a sale of 9 kanals of land to one Daulat on 15th April 1958, another was also a sale of 35 kanals to one Mussadi on 17th April, 1958, and the third was a gift regarding 182 kanals in favour of her daughters. Sada Kaur and Phoolan on 4th December, 1959.

6. In June 1962, three suits were filed by the various reversioners challenging these three alienations chiefly on the ground that Toti had no right to effect them, because she had only a life interest in the said property in lieu of maintenance according to the compromise mentioned above.

7. These suits were contested by the alienees mainly on the ground that Toti had become the full owner of the property under Section 14(1), read with its explanation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereinafter called the Act, and, therefore, she could make the sales and the gift.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suits and so did the lower appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court held that by virtue of Section 14(1) read with its explanation. Toti had become the complete owner of the property and was fully entitled to make the impugned alienations. Against this decision, the reversioners have filed three regular second appeals Nos. 339, 340 and 341 of 1965 and they will be disposed of by this judgment, since admittedly the same question arises for consideration in all of them.

9. The sole point that has been argued before me is whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court to the effect that Toti had become the full owner of the property by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, is correct or not. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the circumstances of this case, Section 14(2) would apply and not Section 14(1) and that being so. Toti could not be held to have become the complete owner of the property in dispute. Section 14 reads as under:-

-

"(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after 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" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance, or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person. whether a relative or not before, at or after her marriage or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in Sub-s. (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will o