The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to advance the objective of enlarging the limited interest possessed by Hindu widows and recognizing preexisting rights in property acquisitions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1997 passed in First Appeal No.12/1993 (Smt. Annapurna Devi and others vs. Pt. Ram Shankar Shukla substituted by his legal heirs) by learned First Additional District Judge, Pilibhit by which learned court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1981 passed by Civil Judge, Pilibhit in O.S. No.49/2007 (Ram Shankar Shukla Vs. Smt. Annapurna Devi and Harish Chandra Bajpai) holding that Smt. Ramshri Kunwar (mother of Smt. Annapurna Devi) became full owner of the property in suit by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and not a licencee.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are in brief that Pt. Jagan Mohan Shukla was owner of movable and immovable property. He had two wives, one Smt. Ramshri Kunwar and other Smt. Saraswati Devi. Smt. Annapurna Devi was daughter of Smt. Ramshri Kunwar and Pt. Ram Shankar Shukla was son of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar. Sri Ram Shankar Shukla was represented by his son Kamlesh Kumar, daughter Smt. Indra Prakashini and Smt. Raj Mohini. During pendency of this appeal, Kamlesh Shukla also died and represented through his legal representatives. Likewise respondent Smt. Annapurna Devi died and represented through her legal representatives.

4. Pt. Jagan Mohan Shukla executed a family settlement deed on 27.05.1940 with a view to maintain peace and harmony in the family between Sri Ram Shankar Shukla and Smt. Ramshri Kunwar his step mother. He made arrangement of his entire property and gave life estate to his wife Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar in two houses as described in para no.4 A of the plaint and granted absolute rights of ownership of one shop as mentioned in para no.4C, half share in two grooves as mentioned in para no.4B of the plaint. He reserved for his own use, the property mentioned in para no.5 for lifetime and after his death, the plaintiff/Ram Shankar Shukla was to become its absolute owner. The settlement deed dated 27.05.1940 was acted upon and Smt. Ramshri Kunwar was given possession accordingly. She sold some of the property given to her by the deed dated 27.05.1940 and continued to occupy the houses mentioned in para no.4A of the plaint till she died on 16.04.1977 and then property was occupied by her daughter Smt. Annapurna Devi and her husband. Since Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar was given life interest in the property (houses) and daughter of Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar with her husband was living in the houses even after the death of Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar, therefore, they were asked to vacate the property but on their failure, this suit was filed by the plaintiff Ram Shankar Shukla which was decreed by the learned trial court holding that since Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar was given life interest in the disputed houses by way of gift-cum-will-cum family settlement by Pt. Jagan Mohan Shukla, therefore, the case was covered by sub Section 2 of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.

5. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree Smt. Annapurna Devi preferred first appeal before the District Judge which was heard and decided by learned First Additional District Judge, Pilibhit on 12.09.1997 by which learned court allowed the appeal and held that Smt. Ram Shri Kunwar became the owner of the property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and she was not a licencee. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree this second appeal has been preferred by legal heirs of Ram Shankar Shukla against Smt. Annapurna Devi (died during the pendency of appeal) and her husband Harish Chandra Bajpai before this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In this appeal two substantial questions of law were formulated.

I. Whether the Gift-cum-will-cum-family settlement dated 27.5.1940 executed by Pt. Jagan Mohan Shukla is not covered by the provision