JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit. This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances :

2. Smt Kirpo, who is the principal defendant, was married to Sawan Singh some time in 1924 Sawan Singh died during the life time of his father Bhagwan Singh. On Bhagwan Singhs death, Smt. Kirpo succeeded to his estate as his sons widow. She married one Bakhtawar Singh in the year 1925 and in the year 1927, Bishan Singh, who if the fourth degree collateral of Bhagwan Singh both being the descendants of Dhanna Singh, brought a suit for declaration that he was in possession of Bhagwan Singhs property and was entitled to retain it as the next heir because by remarriage Smt. Kirpo had forfeited her right to Bhagwan Singhs estate. Whether this plea would have succeeded or not, if the litigation had reached its logical conclusion, is a different matter. The fact remains that this suit was compromised on the 23rd November, 1928. By this compromise the estate was left with Smt. Kirpo for life and it was specifically provided that she could not alienate the same in any manner.

Mst. Kirpo gave birth to a son Dalip Singh from Bakhtawar Singh. In the year 1945. Smt. Kirpo gifted the estate to Dalip Singh, her son from Bakhtawar Singh, by an oral gift. Dalip Singh thereafter brought a suit for possession of that property and obtained a decree on the 12th November, 1945. On the 18th April, 1946, Bakhtawar Singh father of Dalip Singh brought a suit for declaration that the gift by Smt Kirpo would not affect his reversionary rights in view of the compromise of 1928. This suit was decreed on the 3rd June, 1948. An appeal filed by Dalip Singh against it was withdrawn.

On the 22nd September, 1958, Dalip Singh executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Smt. Kirpo giving up his rights in the gifted property. By this process the gifted property again vested in Smt. Kirpo On the 1st October, 1958, she executed a will in favour of Karnail Singh son of Dalip Singh and Pritma Kaur wife of Dalip Singh. This has led to the present suit by Bakhtawar Singh on the 12th March, 1959 for a declaration that Smt. Kirpo is a limited owner and could not make a gift. This suit, as already stated, has been decreed by the trial Court and an appeal against it has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence the present second appeal.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Courts below were in error in holding that Smt. Kirpo held a limited estate in the property gifted by her. It is contended that after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act she became an absolute owner of the property in dispute and the Courts below have erred in holding that she was a limited owner of the same. Smt. Kirpo succeeded to her father-in-law and, therefore, she acquired the property by succession and therefore it cannot be that she acquired the same by reason of the 1928 compromise. That being so Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act has no applicability. The case really fell under Section 14(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relies on Smt. Billabasini Datta v. Dulal Chandra Dutta, AIR 1958 Cal 472, Smt. Janak Dulari v. Dist. Judge, Kanpur, AIR 1961 All 294, V. Sampathkumari v. M. Lakshmi Ammal, AIR 1963 Mad 50 and Smt. Sharbati Devi v. Hira Lal, 66 Pun LR 78 : (AIR 1984 Punj 114). These decisions, on a cursory reading, do seem to support the contention of the learned counsel but in my view they are all distinguishable and have no application to the facts of the present case.

4. It is common ground that Smt. Kirpo remarried, after the death of her husband, the husbands collateral Bakhtawar Singh. On her remarriage, a dispute arose as to whether she had forfeited the right to the properly she had acquired from her husband by reason of the remarriage. That dispute was compromised and it seems to have been assumed that she had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document