JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 13-1-1998 passed by District Judge, Datia, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/95 whereby the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 24-2-1977 passed by Civil Judge Class II Kurwai in Civil Suit No. 84-A/74.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration of title in respect of agricultural land bearing survey numbers 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2049, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065 and 2066 having an area 22.606 hectare. According to the plaintiffs, the property was owned by Badri. Badri had two sons Pyarelal and Pooran. Pyarelal died in Jan, 1937. He left behind three sons Nannu, Mannu, and Bhaiyyalal and widow Rambai, while Pooran died in September, 1949 and had a daughter Saraswati Bai who married during the life- time of Pooran. After the death of Pooran, his share devolved on the plaintiffs. As per the plaintiffs Rambai had no share in the property of Pyarelal and the property of Pyarelal has also devolved on the heirs of Pyarelal namely Nannu, Mannu and Bhaiyalal. Rambai who had no share in the suit property sold 1/2 share by registered sale deed to Kanhaiyalal S/o Murlidhar, who is defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiffs Rambai had no right, title or interest to sell the property and possession of Kanhaiyalal is illegal. Hence, they also prayed for relief of restoration of possession and for cancellation of the sale deed. Prayer for possession was also made during the pendency of the suit alleging that Kanhaiyalal had forcibly took possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

3. The case was mainly contested by defendant Kanhaiyalal. He has stated in his written statement that the property was never a joint Hindu Family property and the property was solely owned by Pooran. After his death Rambai who is the widow of Pooran has become the owner of the property and Rambai had right to sell the property which was recorded in the name of Pooran. Rambai became the sole owner of the property after the death of Pooran and therefore, she had right to sell the property. It is also alleged that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

4. Thus, according to the defendants, Rambai was not the wife of Pyarelal as alleged by the plaintiffs but she was the wife of Pooran.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Rambai was the widow of Pooran and not of Pyarelal and therefore she has a right to sell the land. First appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

6. This appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 was applicable in the erstwhile State of Kurwai and the defendants were entitled to benefit under the aforesaid Act?"

7. Question of law is whether the aforesaid 1937 Act was applicable in the erstwhile State of Kurwai.

8. As per the defendants as Rambai was the widow of Pooran and as Pooran died in 1949. Rambai became the owner of the property as per the provisions of Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter, referred to as "1937 Act"). The two Courts below have concurrently found that Pooran was the sole owner of the property and Rambai was the widow of Pooran and not the widow of Pyarelal as alleged by the plaintiffs. This is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in this second appeal.

9. Now the question is what was the right of Rambai in the land in question which was received by Pooran.

10. As per the findings of the two Courts below, Pooran died in 1947 and Rambai who was his widow continued to be in possession and became the owner as per 1937 Act. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Kurwai was situated in the erstwhile State of Bhopal and as per Merger of States Act, 1949, 1937 Act was adopted in the erstwhi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document