JUDGMENT :- In order to appreciate the point which is to fie decided in this appeal it is necessary to state the facts shortly. One Din Dayal, who was a lawyer, had two wives, Smt. Mathri and Smt. Basanti. Front Smt. Mathri he had a son, Bhikan Lal, who died in 1917 leaving a widow Mst. Sharbati Devi who is defendant No. 1 in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Smt. Basanti was the other wife of Din Dayal from whom he had a son, Hira Lal, who is the plaintiff. Din Dayal diet in the year 1938 and on 31st December 1938 his properties were mutated half and half in favour of Mst. Sharbati Devi and Hira Lal who was minor at that time. Mst. Sharoati Devi remained in possession of the properties which had been mutated in her favour.

In the year 1350 a suit was filed by Hira Lal against Mst. Sharbati Devi in which a compromise took place on the basis of which a consent decree was passed on 9th May 1951 declaring that Hira Lal was the sole heir and owner of the property left by Din Dayal but she was given possession of the suit land and certain other lands for life her rights being restricted with regard to alienation etc. On 14th September 1956 she sold 4 Kanals and 3 marias of land to Khem Ram defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 200/-. This led to the institution of a suit by Hira Lal for possession of the land sold and in the alternative for a declaration that the sale by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was void and ineffective as against the plaintiffs rights. The suit was contested by Mst. Sharbati Devi and on pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were raised. The only material issue, however, is No. 1 which is -

"Whether defendant ho. 1 became full owner of the suit property by coming into force of Act No. 30 of 1956"? The trial court while decreeing the suit made an obvious mistake by passing a decree for possession of 16 bighas and 1 biswa whereas the claim was only in respect of 4 Kanals and 3 marlas of land which had been alienated. The learned senior Subordinate Judge affirmed the decree of the trial Court. It appears that before him the mistake with regard to the area of the land in dispute was not pointed out. The present appeal has been filed only by Mst. Sharbati Devi and the sole point on which learned counsel have addressed arguments relates to the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by virtue of which the suit land would be held by Mst. Sharbati Devi as full owner which she would be fully entitled to alienate.

The position taken up by the plaintiff, however, is that Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 governs the present case 33 the property in dispute was acquired by Mst. Sharbati Devi under the consent decree dated 9th May 1951 and, therefore, she was not entitled to alienate the property in any manner as provided in the compromise on which the decree was based.

2. Mr. Shamair Chand, who appears for the defendant-appellant, contends that the property in dispute had been acquired before the commencement of the Act after the death of Din Dayal by the appellant in lieu of maintenance and, therefore, it was held by her as full owner by virtue or Section 14(1) at the time when she, alienated it in favour of Khem Ram. It is pointed out that if the female Hindu has already acquired property in that manner, then Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 will have no application because according to the express language employed therein it can govern only such cases where property has been acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a Civil Court, etc. According to Mr. Shamair Chand, this means that Sub-Section (2) can come into operation only it acquisition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu who is in possession of the property. My attention has been invited to a decision of Gurudev Singh, J. in Dhanna Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document