Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act limits a female's claim to limited interests under testamentary dispositions.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-Bhajan Singh and Pritam Singh (now represented through their LRs - respondents) seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property was decreed by the Trial Court on 03.12.1987, and the appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 06.09.1993.

2. Factual Matrix : Baru Singh was owner of land measuring 186 kanals 7 marlas, one-eighth of which forms the subject-matter of dispute. He died on 03.06.1972, leaving behind four sons-Lal Singh, Bhajan Singh (plaintiff No. 1), Pritam Singh (plaintiff No. 2) and Bhag Singh (defendant No. 3). Lal Singh had pre-deceased him, leaving behind his widow Smt. Harnam Kaur (defendant No. 1) i.e., daughter-in-law of Baru Singh. Defendant No. 2 Sadhu Singh, one of the appellants, is son of Bhag Singh. By way a registered Will dated 06.09.1967 (Ex.P-1), registered on 12.09.1967, Baru Singh bequeathed his property as follows:

1/8th share to Smt. Harnam Kaur (widow of pre-deceased son Lal Singh) for life only; and

Remaining 7/8th share equally to his three surviving sons. The Will expressly stipulated that on Harnam Kaur's death, her 1/8th share would revert to the surviving sons. Mutation was sanctioned accordingly.

Despite the restriction, Harnam Kaur suffered a decree dated 02.03.1985 in favour of Sadhu Singh and mutation No. 5429 dated 27.05.1987 was sanctioned in his favour.

3. The plaintiffs challenged decree dated 02.03.1985 and the consequent mutation, asserting that Harnam Kaur held only a life estate and was incompetent to alienate or suffer any decree concerning the property.

4. The defendants denied the Will and supported the impugned decree of 1985.

5. Findings by Courts below: The Trial Court held that the Will was duly proved through the scribe and attesting witness, declaring the 1985 decree and consequent mutation as null and void, as Harnam Kaur had only limited interest. The First Appellate Court affirmed those findings.

6. Submissions: It is argued for the appellants that under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , any property possessed by a Hindu female-however acquired-becomes her absolute property. Hence, even if the Will created a limited estate, Harnam Kaur became full owner on Baru Singh's death. Reliance was placed on Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi (dead) through LRs v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal (dead) through LRs, (2022) 17 SCC 434 ; and Singh v. Jangir Singh, 2016 (1) PLR 472.

7. Per Contra, Ld. counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 14 (2) specifically excludes such cases, where property is acquired under a Will prescribing a restricted estate; and thus, (1) cannot enlarge it into full ownership. Reliance was placed on Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike , (2006) 8 SCC 75 .

8. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully.

9. Analysis by this Court: The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, upholding the legality and validity of the Will dated 06.09.1967 registered on 12.09.1967 (Ex.P1) by Baru Singh has not been assailed before this Court. Even otherwise, the evidence discussed by the Courts below would reveal that said Will was duly proved by the testimony of scribe and one of the attesting witness. The Will was duly registered. As such, concurrent finding of the Courts below regarding validity of the Will is upheld.

10. It was not the case of eit