IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Claim of Hindu widow to be maintained is not a mere formality which is to be exercised as a matter of concession, grace or gratis but is a valuable, spiritual and moral right.
(2) Property once granted to a female Hindu, cannot be subject matter of Will in order to divest her of such property.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The plaintiff is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgments and decrees concurrently passed by the learned courts below, has filed the instant appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the “plaintiff” and “defendant”.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that late Bihu, husband of the defendant, on 28.6.1986 made a grant of the suit land/property in favour of the defendant on account of maintenance as finds recorded in Cr. Revision No.8M/85. This grant was upheld even by this Court in RSA No. 266/2004 and thereafter the defendant obtained the possession of the suit property in Execution Petition No.1X/05, decided on 27.5.2005. It was further averred that the grant made by late Bihu to the defendant was conditional to the effect that the same was till the life time of the defendant and she would not be able to transfer the same by way of sale, will, gift or in any other manner during her life time. Late Bihu made a registered will in favour of the plaintiff on 27.8.1982 vide which he was entitled to entire estate of Bihu and also as an adopted son, which fact was also mentioned in the will. Subsequently when the possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant on 24.5.2005 at the spot, the plaintiff requested that the entry, as stated in the compromise before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi dated 28.6.1986, be incorporated in the revenue papers, but the same was not done. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, valuation and locus standi were taken. On merits, it was denied that the grant of the suit land/property made by late Bhiu to defendant was conditional to the effect that the same was during her life time. It was further averred that there was no such condition ever imposed or agreed by her in the compromise executed before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi on 18.6.1986. She claimed herself to be an individual owner of the suit land/property having every right to enjoy and develop the same as she wished. The plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit land/property. It was further contended that neither the plaintiff had right to get executed a registered will in his name of the suit land/property neither he was the adopted son of late Bihu.

4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, wherein averments made in the written statement were denied and the averments made in the plaint were reaffirmed and reasserted.

5 On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 5.11.2005 framed the following issues:—

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration that the defendant is limited owner in the suit land ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reversionary rights after the death of defendant? OPD

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff has estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct and deeds? OPD.

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs by concluding that the suit land/property acquired by the defendant under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act (for short, the “Act”) in lieu of maintenance and the same was possessed by her on the date of commencement of the Act, which had ripened into full ownership and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled f