A widow's right to maintenance is a right in and attached to the property of her deceased husband, and is a charge on the whole and every part of his estate. Therefore, if a widow is in possession of her husband's property in lieu of maintenance, she becomes the full owner of such property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

PREM CHAND PANDIT, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this letters patent appeal are these, Isher Singh, a Sidhu Jat of village Kaoni, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur, was the last male-holder of the property in dispute. He died on 12th April, 1942, leaving behind a widow Shrimati Har Kaur and her step-son Nand Singh. The mutation of the estate of the deceased, including the land in dispute, measuring 155 Kanals 15 Marlas, was got effected by Har Kaur in her own favour. At that time, she never mentioned to the Revenue Authorises even about the existence of Nand Singh. In 1944, Nand Singh brought a suit against Har Kaur for possession of the entire land left by his father on the ground that he, being his son, was entitled to the same. During the pendency of that suit, a compromise was effected between the parties on 19th June, 1945, by which Har Kaur gave up possession of l/3rd of the propert left by Isher Singh and with regard to the remaining 2/3rd it was settled that she would remain in its possession during her lifetime, but would not alienate the same without consideration and legal necessity. After her death, even this 2/3rd share would go to Nand Singh. This compromise was incorporated in the order of the Court, which is marked as Exhibit P-7. In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , hereinafter called the Act, came into force and thereafter on 15th December, 1961, taking advantage of the provisions of the Act, Har Kaur sold the land in dispute, which was in her possession at that time, to Nachhattar Singh and others for Rs. 35,000.00 . This sale was then challenged by Nand Singh by bringing a suit in January 1962 against Har Kaur and her vendees for a declaration that the said alienation, being without consideration and legal necessity, was void and ineffective against his reversionary interests. The property, according to the plaintiff, was ancestral and the parties were governed by custom in matters of succession and alienation. Har Kaur was not competent to alienate the said property without necessity and she could only have its usufruct during her lifetime.

2. The suit was resisted by the vendees alone and Har Kaur did not file any written statement. They pleaded that the sale in their favour was for consideration and necessity. Har Kaur had, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, become the full owner of the property on the date of sale, as she had inherited the same on the death of her husband. It was also said that Nand Singh was not the son of Isher Singh.

3. The trial Judge did not decide whether the land in dispute was ancestral and the parties were governed by custom or not. It was found that the plaintiff was the son of Isher Singh and the sale in question had been made without legal necessity. The suit was, however, dismissed on the finding that as a result of the enforcement of the Act, Har Kaur had become the absolute owner of the land in question, which was indisputably in her possession.

4. When the matter went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, he came to the conclusion that Har Kaur had not become the full owner of the property, as she had acquired the same under the decree of a Civil Court, which was based on a compromise with her son and in view of the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act, she held the property as a limited owner under the terms of that compromise. On that finding, the appeal was accepted and the plaintiff s suit decreed. It might be stated that the other findings of the trial Court were, however, confirmed by the learned Judge.

5. Against that decision, the vendees came in second appeal to this Court, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge. He found that by the compromise, Exhibit P-7, the right to the land in dispute was not conferred on Har Kaur, for the first time, because she was the widow of the last male-holder and at least entitled to maintenance. Even if it be held that Nand Singh was her step-son, it could not be disputed that on the