Succession—Hindu Widow—Widow of pre-deceased son had no pre-existing rights of maintenance from the self-acquired property of the father-in-law therefore does not become full owner of the property.

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Arguments were heard. Judgment was reserved. The judgment is being released.

2. The defendants-appellants are in the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below while decreeing a suit for declaration filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 claiming that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Shanti on 04.12.1998 are illegal, null and void.

3. Some facts are required to be noticed. Bhulla Ram was having three sons-Sadhu Ram, Brahm Dutt and Satya Paul, apart from a wife namely Dropati Devi. Sadhu Ram died during the lifetime of Bhulla Ram. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 is son of Brahm Dutt.

4. Bhulla Ram had lot of self-acquired property. He with a view to avoid any dispute between his successors, entered into a family settlement. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Settlement was reduced into writing on 18.03.1955 thumb marked by all the family members including various witnesses. According to the memorandum of family settlement, some property had come to the share of Brahm Dutt whereas some property had come to the share of Satya Paul. Similarly, two residential houses came to the share of Smt. Shanti Devi, widowed daughter-in-law. However, there was some other property left which was kept by Bhulla Ram for himself including land and kothi which although was in the name of his son namely Satya Paul. It was agreed that Satya Paul would transfer this property in favour of his father who alongwith his wife as well as Shanti Devi (widowed daughter-in-law) would reside therein and after his death, if his wife is alive, she would remain in possession alongwith widowed daughterin-law and after the death of the wife, Smt. Shanti Devi (widowed daughterin-law) would be entitled to reside therein and after her death, the property would be divided among his two sons in equal share.

5. Sh. Bhulla Ram died in the year 1960 and the mutation of the various properties were sanctioned on the basis of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 18.03.1955. It was specifically recorded in the aforesaid mutation that Smt. Shanti Devi would have no right to sell or mortgage the property which had been given to her for residence only during her lifetime. It may be noted that Sh. Satya Paul, pursuant to the Memorandum of Family Settlement had transferred the property in dispute in favour of his father measuring 4 kanals and 16 marlas.

6. Undisputedly, Smt. Shanti Devi had transferred the land measuring 2 kanals and 8 marlas in favour of Brij Mohan son of Satya Paul. However, she sold land measuring 2 kanals and 8 marlas by a separate sale deed in favour of the appellants which has been impugned in the suit.

7. Both the Courts after appreciating the evidence have found that the sale executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of the appellants is illegal as he had no pre-existing rights of maintenance in the property in question, therefore, the right in the property, if any does not enlarge into full ownership in terms of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1956”).

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956 would apply and Smt. Shanti Devi deemed to have become full owner. He further submitted that in any case, once she was recorded as owner, the defendants-appellants are bona fide purchasers and, therefore, entitled to protect the rights transferred as per the sale deed. He further submitted that since Smt. Shanti Devi was always treated as an full owner and Smt. Shanti on various occasions sold the property in favour of her brother-in-law Brahm Dutt as well as in favour of her second brother-in-law Satya Paul, therefore, the ownership of Smt. Shanti is not in dispute.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that two residential houses had been given to Smt. Shanti Devi exclusive ownership. He further submitted that since two other houses have b