JUDGMENT Chet Ram Thakur, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the present appellants against Megh Raj and others. 2. One Ralla Ram, who was the owner of several buildings including the residential houses and shops situate on the Mall, in the Middle Bazar and at other places outside Simla, made a gift of his properties, namely, one four storeyed shop together with stair-case bearing No.. 37, situate in the middle of the main bazar, three shops built of pacca masonry together with the pillar of three storyed shop on the west bearing No. 64, situate in the middle of the Middle Bazar, one double storyed house bearing No. 23, situate in the middle of Kashmiri Chakla, one double storeyed Pukhta Haveli together with a terrace and the vacant land attached to that Haveli, a double storeyed Pukhta shop with the entire land and a dilapidated house in the middle of the orchard and also the properties situate outside Simla, to his mother Smt. Paro in the year 1904. By that gift deed which was registered on 4th June, 1904, there was a condition attached to the gift which is in the following terms :— "I, the donor, and my wives have to maintain ourselves and the donee aforesaid behaves us very nicely, it will be her (donee) duty to give me and my two wives maintenance till we survive and to pay us money for our necessary household expenses, other expenses for purposes of mourning and rejoicing for minor daily necessities of mess and for comforts, clothes and necessary ornaments. Hence I have executed this deed of gift." 3. The donor, that is, Shri Ralla Ram died in the year 1913 and Smt. Paro, the donee, died in the year 1921 Under the terms of the gift deed, Smt. Paro had been given all the rights to mortgage, sell, gift or transier the aforesaid properties in any way adding this condition that the donee was under a duty to maintain the persons mentioned therein. Smt. Paro had one daughter but she, it appears, pre-deceased her. Since Paro bad become the absolute owner of the properties, the same had become her stridhana. So the property was to devolve on her daughter but she had pre-deceased her mother leaving behind one daughter Smt. Bhago, who also died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Smt. Paro had one daughter but she, it appears, pre-deceased her. Since Paro bad become the absolute owner of the properties, the same had become her stridhana. So the property was to devolve on her daughter but she had pre-deceased her mother leaving behind one daughter Smt. Bhago, who also died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. But somehow the property was mutated in the name of Smt. Ananti Devi widow of Ralla Ram on the death of Smt. Paro and she continued in possession. 4. Smt. Ananti Devi made a gift of two shops bearing Nos. 64/1 and 64/3 situate in Simla by two separate registered gift-deeds, dated 24th August, 1925 in favour of different persons. The reversioners of Ralia Ram, namely, Sarvshri Tilak Ram and Shadi Ram, brought two separate suits, viz., Civil Suit No. 26 of 1926 against the donees of shop No. 64/1 and Civil Suit No. 27 of 1926 against the donees of shop No. 64/3, situate in Middle Bazar Simla, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla, for declaration to the effect that the gifts were invalid and ineffective after the death of Smt. Am nti Devi against the rights of the reversioners of Ralla Ram. Those suits were decreed in favour of the reversioners by the Senior Subordinate Judge. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge decided that the plainjrls m those two suits were reversioners and that the gift made by Ralla Ram in favour of his mother Smt. Paro did not give her absolute right in the gifted property but bestowed only a life estate on her and further that on the death of Smt. Paro the reversioners of Ralla Ram and not the heirs of Smt Paro were entitled to succeed subject to the rights of Smt. Ananti Devi if she had any as Ralla Rams widow and that the possession of Ananti Devi was not that of a trespasser but that of a life tenant after the death ot her husband Ralla Ram and Smt. Paro. 5. Against those decrees in those two suits she preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Ambala. The Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the trial Court on the point that the suit properties were ancestral and that the gift conferred only a life estate on her (Smt, Paro). 5. Against those decrees in those two suits she preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Ambala. The Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the trial Court on the point that the suit properties were ancestral and that the gift conferred only a life estate on her (Smt, Paro). He held that the gift made by Ralla Kam in favour of his mother Smt. Paro conferred an absolute estate on her and that after the death of Smt. Paro in 1920-21 it was her daughters daughter Smt. Bhago who became entitled to the properties as life tenant and not Smt. Ananti Devi, the widow of Ralla Ram and that the plaintiff-reversioners ought to have sued for a declaration that their rights would not be effected alter Smt. Bhagos death rather than after Smt Ananti Devis death. But having regard to the fact that Smt. Bhago had allowed the properties to remain in possession of Smt. Ananti Devi and thus to become alienated by her (Ananti Devi) the plaintiff-reversioners were held by the Appellate Court to have a locus standi to sue to protect their reversionery interest during Smt. Bhagos life-time against any encroachment upon their title whether the encroachments were made by Smt. Bhago or Smt. Ananti Devi. The Appellate Court while upholding the decree of the trial Court added a further declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs-reversioners will not be able to obtain possession of the properties from the donees until the death of Smt. Bhago in the event of Smt. Bhago surviving Smt. Ananti Devi. 6. Smt. Ananti Devi still continued in possession of the remaining property and she made further gifts of the five storeyed building bearing No. 37 situate on the Mall Simla and the three storeyed building bearing No. 64/2 situate in Middle Bazar Simla in favour of Megh Raj by means oi registered deed of gifts dated 2lth June, 1957 and 6th July, 1937. The reversioners of Ralla Ram filed a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, for declaration to the effect that Smt. Ananti Devi had no right to make the gift for the reasons, firstly, she was not the absolute owner of the gifted properties and, secondly, she had not even life interest in the said properties. The reversioners of Ralla Ram filed a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, for declaration to the effect that Smt. Ananti Devi had no right to make the gift for the reasons, firstly, she was not the absolute owner of the gifted properties and, secondly, she had not even life interest in the said properties. Ralla Ram had gifted his properties, in suit, in favour of his mother, Smt. Paro, who had become an absolute owner thereof. After her death in 1921, her daughter Smt. Bhago inherited the properties as .a life tenant. The mere tact that Smt. Bhago, the life tenant, suffered the properties in suit to remain in possession of Smt Ananti Devi did not render the gift sought to be declared invalid, effectual or valid against the interest of the reversioners after the death of either Smt. Ananii Devi or Smt. Bhago. They, therefore, prayed for a usual declaratory decree. 7. The first preliminary objection taken by Megh Raj, defendant No. 1, was that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue and further that the suit was not maintainable as the gift had been effected after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and further that the suit was not within time. It was further pleaded that Smt. Ananti Devi on the death of Smt. Paro entered into possession as an owner and remained in possession as such openly to the knowledge of Smt. Bhago and others till the date of the gift. Her title as an owner even if defective matured by adverse possession. The defendant No. 1 denied that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversioners of Shri Ralla Ram or that of Smt. Paro. It was further pleaded that even if Smt. Ananti Devi had a life interest it became absolute after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 8. Smt. Bhago who .vas impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit did not file any written statement. Late Shri R. N. Vaid, who was her counsel made a statement on 19th August, 1958 that he had no instructions to appear and so he did not want to appear. 9. On the pleadings of the parties a large number of issues were framed on 3rd September, 1958. Late Shri R. N. Vaid, who was her counsel made a statement on 19th August, 1958 that he had no instructions to appear and so he did not want to appear. 9. On the pleadings of the parties a large number of issues were framed on 3rd September, 1958. The senior subordinate Judge who decided the case by his judgment, dated 12th January, 1959 which is now impugned in appeal found that the judgments in the previous suits, i e., in the year 1927 did not operate as res judicata inasmuch as the properties in the present suit are different. The plaintiffs were held to be collaterals of Ralla Ram. The properties in the suits were originally owned by Ralla Ram and later on the same were gifted by him in favour of his mother Smt. Paio. It was further found by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge that the proviso added by the learned District Judge in the appeal decided by him on 30th April, 1928 and a copy of which is Ex. P-2 was a mere obiter dicta and had no binding force. The learned District Judge could not decide in the Judgment (Ex. P-2) as to who would succeed after the death of Smt. Paro to the property which had been gifted in her favour by her son Ralla Ram conferring absolute title on her. The law prevailing on the death of Mst. Paro had to apply to see as to who should succeed Mst. Paro and that the learned District Judge could not decide that the property owned by Ralla Ram shall be inherited by his reversioners on the death of defendant No. 2, to the exclusion of Smt. Ananti Devi and on the basis of that judgment the plaintiffs could not challenge the gift in dispute made by Smt- Ananti Devi regarding the properties in dispute in favour of defendant No. 1. It was further found by the learned District Judge that on the date of gift, i.e. 20th June, 1957, the rights of Ms. Ananti Devi donor who had not acquired the property in dispute by gift, will or under decree or order of the Civil Court, had become absolute under section 14 (i) of the Act. He, therefore, held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the gift in dispute. Ananti Devi donor who had not acquired the property in dispute by gift, will or under decree or order of the Civil Court, had become absolute under section 14 (i) of the Act. He, therefore, held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the gift in dispute. He further found that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by time. In the end be found that the provisions of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act had extinguished the distinction between a restricted and absolute estate with respect to the property of which she (Smt. Ananti Devi) was in possession whether the acquisition was before or after the enforcement of the Act and that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act stood in the way of the plaintiffs in maintaining the present suit. Otherwise also she had become the owner by way of adverse possession even before the enforcement of the Act. At any rate, after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, she had become lull owner of the properties, in dispute, now gifted by her. 10. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the property, in suit, is a part of the properties of Ralla Ram who had gifted the same to Smt. Paro who had become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the gift and so on her death the property was to devolve on Smt. Bhago, who also died during the pendency of the appeal and now in teims of Paragraph 169 of the Hiudu Law by Muila, the property on the death of Smt. Bhagojis to revert back to the family of Ralla Ram. Further he has contended that Smt. Ananti Devi is not in possession of the property in her right, but she has been permitted to continue in possession by Smt. Bhago who in fact succeeded to the moiefy on the death of Smt. Paro. Further he has contended that Smt. Ananti Devi is not in possession of the property in her right, but she has been permitted to continue in possession by Smt. Bhago who in fact succeeded to the moiefy on the death of Smt. Paro. According to him section 14 of the Hindu succession Act under which the widows estate has been enlarged and the widow has been made absolute owner of the property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. According to him, Smt. Ananti Devi had no right to succeed to the property of Smt. Paro and by the judgment rendered by the District Judge in the year 1927, a copy of which is ex. p-2, the property being the stridhana property of Smt. Paro was to devolve on Smt. Bhago. But Smt. Ananti wrongly continued in possession of the property. The possession should have been taken by Smt. bhago consequent to the death of Smt Paro. The learned counsel in support of his contention that section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case has relied upon Eramma, Appellant v. Veerupana and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1879. 11. There can be no dispute that Smt. Paro became the owner of the property by virtue of the gift and that the stridhana property of Smt. Paro was to devolve on her daughter and in the absence of the daughter on her daughter Smt. Bhago. But the fact remains that Smt. Bhago did not succeed to the property on the death of Smt. Paro rather the property was mutated and came into the possession of Smt. Ananti Devi as the widow of the predeceased son of Smt. Paro. The gift-deed (Ex. But the fact remains that Smt. Bhago did not succeed to the property on the death of Smt. Paro rather the property was mutated and came into the possession of Smt. Ananti Devi as the widow of the predeceased son of Smt. Paro. The gift-deed (Ex. P-j) clearly lays down a condition on the donee that the donor and his wives had to maintain themselves and the donee behaved with them very nicely and it would be her (donees) duty to give him and his two wives maintenance till they survived and to pay them money for their necessary house hold expenses, other expenses for purposes of mourning and rejoicing for minor daily necessities of mess and for comforts, clothes and necessary ornaments. Therefore, the obligation to maintain the donor and his two wives and to meet their necessary house-hold expenses and to provide them other expenses for purposes of mourning and rejoicing for minor daily necessities of mess and for comforts, clothes and necessary ornaments was east upon the donee because the donor had divested himself of the property upon which the wives of the donor had a right of maintenance against their husband Ralla Ram and after the death of the donor also a duty was cast to maintain them because he has stated that this duty was to continue till they survived. Therefore, even if the property was to devolve on the death of Smt. Paro on Smt. Bhago still she was under an obligation to provide for the maintenance of Smt. Ananti Devi who was then surviving however there is nothing on the record as to what happened to the other widow, and this was a duty because of the fact that she had to inherit the property which once belonged to Ralla Ram, the deceased husband of Smt. Ananti Devi. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Smt. Ananti Devi had no right of maintenance under the Hindu Law by Mulla and as such she could not be said in possession of the property in lieu of her maintenance. She was in possession for and on behalf of Smt. Paro, otherwise she had no vestige of any right or title to the property. She was in possession for and on behalf of Smt. Paro, otherwise she had no vestige of any right or title to the property. Her possession was, therefore, not under any title and as such it could not mature into ownership Under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 13. This submission made by the learned counsel that the wife had no right of maintenance under the Hindu Law is not correct as Para 554 of the Hindu Law by Mulla says that (1) a wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband, whether he possesses property or not. When a man with his eyes open marries a girl accustomed to a certain style of living, he undertakes the obligation of maintaining her in that style. The maintenance of a wife by her husband is a matter of personal obligation arising from the very existence of the relationship, and quite independent of the possession by the husband of any property, ancestral or self-acquired. The learned counsel further contends that she has this right, if at all, against her husband but she has no claim for maintenance against her husbands property. This also not appear to be correct that after the life-time of the husband she ceases to have her right of maintenance against the property. Under Para 559 of the Hindu Law by Mulla a widow, who does net succeed to the estate of her husband as his heir, is entitled to maintenance (i) out of her husbands separate property ; also (ii) cut of property in which he was a coparcener at the time of his death, (2) A widow does not lose her right of maintenance out of the estate of her husband even though she may have lived apart from him in his life-time without any justifying cause and was living separate from him at the time of his death. There is an illustration (b) under Para 559 of the Hindu Law by Mulla which is as under:— "A and his father F are members of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law. A dies leaving a widow and F. On As death his undivided interest in the coparcenary property lapses so as to enlarge the interest of F in the property. A dies leaving a widow and F. On As death his undivided interest in the coparcenary property lapses so as to enlarge the interest of F in the property. As widow is entitled to be maintained by her father-in-law F out of the coparcenary property quoad the interest of A in the property. If F refuses to maintain her, she may sue him to have her maintenance charged on a portion of the joint property, such portion not exceeding one-half of the property, that being her husbands share in the property." So, it would appear from the reading of Para 559 and from this illustration that the right of a widow to maintenance is there out of her husbands estate. Wherever the property goes and to whomsoever it goes, he is liable to maintain the widow, not because he is under a personal obligation to maintain her, but because he has in his hands her husbands estate. The property is liable for her maintenance and a charge may be created on it. 14. It is a common case between the parties that Smt. Ananti Devi was in possession of the property and had been enjoying the usufruct thereof on the date when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Eramma v. Veeru-pana and others, case (supra) to show that before a widow can get absolute interest under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act she must have some vestige of title, i.e. her possession must be under some title or right and not be that of a rank trespasser. The observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as contained in Para 7 are as under : "The property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, is clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the commencement of the Act. The observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as contained in Para 7 are as under : "The property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, is clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be noticed that the Explanation to section 14 (1) sets out the various modes of acquisition of the property by a female Hindu and indicates that the section applies only to a property to which the female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however, restricted the nature of her interest may be……..It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of a female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere trespasser. In other words, the provisions of section 14(1) of the Act cannot be attracted in the case of a Hindu female who is in possession of the property of the last male holder on the date of the commencement of the Act when she is only a trespasser without any right to property." Now, we have to see whether Smt. Ananti Devi was in possession of the property on the date of the enforcement of the Act under some right or title, or her possession was that of a rank trespasser. As already stated above, Smt. Ananti Devi had a right of maintenance in the property of her husband Ralla Ram, who had gifted the same in favour of his mother Smt. Paro with a clear condition about the right of maintenance of himself till his life-time and of his two wives. No matter the property had become the Stridhana property of Smt. Paro but it was subject to a right of maintenance of Smt. Ananti Devi till her life-time. The property was actually mutated as already stated and the possession was also taken over by Smt. Ananti Devi and she was entitled to maintenance or to create a charge of maintenance in case the property would have gone in the possession of Smt. Bhago and she would have refused to maintain her. The property was actually mutated as already stated and the possession was also taken over by Smt. Ananti Devi and she was entitled to maintenance or to create a charge of maintenance in case the property would have gone in the possession of Smt. Bhago and she would have refused to maintain her. But here the property remained in the possession of Smt. Bhago so there was no need for her to file any suit for creating a charge on the property for purposes of her maintenance. She continued in possession in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance. The right of maintenance was there even on the date when the property was gifted by late Shri Ralla Ram in favour of his mother Smt. Paro in the year 1904 and the right continued even after the death of Ralla Ram in 1913 and this right continued and it was a duty upon Stnt. Paro to maintain her. But Mst. Paro died in 1921 and Smt. Ananti Devi survived her and she died only in August, 1957. The Hindu Succession Act came into force on the 17th June, 195a, whereas the gifts were effected on 20th June, 1957 and 6th July, 1957. Smt. Ananti Devi was, therefore, in possession of the property in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance on the date of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Vaddehoyina Tulasamma and others v. Vaddeboyina Seeha Reddi {dead) by L. Rs. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1944 that :— "(1) a Hindu womans right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Vaddehoyina Tulasamma and others v. Vaddeboyina Seeha Reddi {dead) by L. Rs. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1944 that :— "(1) a Hindu womans right to maintenance is a personal obligation so far as the husband is concerned, and it is his duty to maintain her even if he has no property. If the husband has property then the right of the widow to maintenance becomes an equitable charge on his property and any person who succeeds to the property carries with it the legal obligation to maintain the widow ; (2) though the widows right to maintenance is not a right to property but it is undoubtedly a preexisting right in property, i.e. it is a jus and rem not jus in rem and it can be enforced b> the widow who can get a charge created for her maintenance on the property either by an agreement or by obtaining a decree from the civil court; (3) that the right of maintenance is a matter of moment and is of such importance that even if the joint property is sold and the purchaser has notice of the widows right to maintenance, the purchaser is legally bound to provide for her maintenance ; (4) that the right to maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu Law long before the passing of the Act of 193/ or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore a preexisting right; (5) that the right to maintenance fiows from the social and temporal relationship between the husband and the wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a sort of co-owner in the property of her husband, though her co-ownership is of a subordinate nature ; and (6) that where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband, she is entitled to retain the possession in lieu of her maintenance unless the person who succeeds to property or purchases the same is in a position to make due arrangements for her maintenance." 15. In the light of the weighty pronouncement by the Supreme Court it is crystal clear that Smt. Ananti Devi who was in possession of the property and had a right of maintenance impliedly has recongnised by Smt. Bhago to continue in possession of the property in lieu of her maintenance and which right of maintenance was a pre-existing right. Smt. Ananti Devi, therefore, cannot be said to be in possession of the property as a rank trespasser. She came into possession on the death of her mother-in-law Smt. Paro and Smt. Bhago who was to succeed to the property subject to the right of maintenance which had been created under the gift-deed by the donor, i.e., the husband of Suit. Ananti Devi did not object to the continuance of Smt. Ananti Devi in possession and, therefore, she impliedly recognized the right of maintenance and it was in lieu of that pre-existing right of maintenance that she had permitted to continue in possession. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that she had no vestige of title is not acceptable and the law with regard to the right of maintenance of a Hindu widow has been authoritatively laid down in this latest authority of the Supreme Court. Consequently, it is sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act which is applicable to the facts of the present case. We may also quote with advantage the legal position summarised by Fazal Ali, J. in Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others case (supra) and it is to the following effect :— "We would now like to summarise the legal positions which we have reached after an exhaustive considerations of the authorities mentioned above on the question of law involved in this appeal as to the interpretation of section 14 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1956. These conclusions may be stated thus: (1) The Hindu females right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right against property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife and is recognised and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law and has been strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurists starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu. Such a right may not be a right to property but it is a right against property and the husband has a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the family has property, the female has the legal right to be maintained therefrom. If a charge is created for the maintenance of a female, the said right becomes a legally enforceable one. At any rate, even without a charge the claim for maintenance in doubtless a pre-existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognising such a right does not confer any new title but merely endorses or confirms the pre-existing rights. (2) Section 14 (1) and the Explanation thereto have been couched in the widest possible terms and must be liberally construed in favour of the females so as to advance the object of the 195o Act and promote the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by this long needed legislation. (3) Sub-section (2) of section 14 is in the nature of a proviso and has a field of its own without interfering with the operation of section 14 (1) materially. The proviso should not be construed in a manner so as to destroy the effect of the main provision or the protection granted, by section (14) (1) or in a way so as to become totally inconsistent with the main provision. (4) Sub-section (2) of section 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards, gifts, etc. which create independent and new titles in favour of the females for the first time and has no application where the instrument concerned merely seeks to confirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights. In such cases a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and section 14 (1) will not operate in this sphere. Where, however, an instrument merely declares or recognises a pre existing right, such as a claim to maintenance or partition or share to which the female is entitled, the subsection has absolutely no application and the females limited interest would automatically be enlarged into an absolute one by force of section 14 (1) and the restrictions placed, if any, under the document would have to be ignored. Thus where a property is allotted or transferred to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken out of the ambit of sub section (2) and would be governed by section 14 (1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee. (5) The use of express terms like "property acquired by a female Hindu at a partition", "or in lieu of maintenance" "or arrears of maintenance" etc. in the Explanation to section 14 (1) clearly makes sub-section (2, inapplicable to these categories which have been expressly excepted from the operation of sub-section (2). (6) The words "possessed by" used by the Legislature in section 14 (1) are of the widest possible amplitude and. include the state of owning a property even though the owner is not in actual or physical possession of the same. Thus, where a widogets a share in the property under a preliminary decree before or at the time when the 1956 Act had been passed but had not been given actual possession under a final decree, the property would be deemed to be possessed by her and by force of section 14 (1) she would get absolute interest in the property, it is equally well settled that the possession of the widow, however, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser without any right of title. (7) That the words "restricted estate" used in section 14 (2) are wider than limited interest as indicated in section 14 (1) and they include not only limited interest, but also any other kind of limitation that may be placed on the transferee." Therefore, in the light of this Supreme Court authority which has settled the law as regards the Hindu womans right to maintenance and with regards to the acquisition of rights as contemplated under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. It would, therefore, follow that Smt. Ananti Devi who was in possession of the property in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance on the date of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, bad become the absolute owner of the property. It would, therefore, follow that Smt. Ananti Devi who was in possession of the property in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance on the date of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, bad become the absolute owner of the property. As such she could alienate the property in any manner as she liked after she had acquired the right under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act her case did not fall under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act as already indicated above. In view of this authority there is hardly any need to refer to any other authority be cause the entire law has been reviewed and it has been finally settled by this aforesaid authority. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants sought to canvass that Smt. Bhago had limited rights in the property and that she was not in actual possession. Then according to him, neither Smt. Bhago nor Smt. Ananti Devi was to get full rights in the property. Smt. Bhagos right had been determined by the decree passed in favour of the reversioners in the 1957 and she was held to be a life tenant of the propeity and as such if Smt. Bhago could not become the owner of the property then muchiess could Smt. Ananti Devi be held to be the limited owner and after the Act of 1956 an absolute owner. Reliance is placed on Mst. Parmeshwari (Deceased) Represented by her Legal Representatives v. Mst. Santokhi, AIR 1977 P&H 141. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected. This authority has got no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case it were only the gifts in respect of the properties bearing Nos. 64/1 and 64/3 that the reversioners filed a suit challenging the alienation and it was only in respect of these properties that the reversioners were held entitled to possession after the life-time of Smt. Bhago. In fact this suit out of which the present appeal has arisen does not pertain to the two properties Nos. 64/1 and 64/3. But it pertains to the other properties bearing Municipal Nos. 37 and 64/2. In fact this suit out of which the present appeal has arisen does not pertain to the two properties Nos. 64/1 and 64/3. But it pertains to the other properties bearing Municipal Nos. 37 and 64/2. Therefore, any judgment passed in respect of the earlier properties will not have any impact on the other properties especially when this property continued to be in possession of Smt. Ananti Devi in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance even till after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, the object of which is to ameliorate the position of the Hindu widows and to confer upon them a respectable place in the society by enlarging their rights in the property and to give them equal rights with the males. 17. Learned counsel has further contended that this part which is a subject-matter of the present suit forms a part of the estate of Ralla Ram and if in the previous suit in respect of the part of the estate, it has been held that the present appellants were reversioners and the ^alienation was void then it would be held to be good and effective in respect of the other part of the same estate and that the judgment in the earlier case would operate as res judicata. He has also referred to us to one or two authorities in this behalf which is not necessary for us to notice because it was not as a matter of fact the gift made in respect of the entire estate made to Smt. Paro which was challenged by the reversioners. They should have challenged this alienation or gift of the entire estate by Ralla Ram in favour of his mother, but once the property had been gifted and Smt. Paro had remained in possession of the same as an owner without challenging the same by the reversioners she had become absolute owner of the property and the same was to devolve on the heirs of Smt. Paro. No matter subsequent to the death of Smt. Paro the property was to revert to the heirs of Ralla Ram. No matter subsequent to the death of Smt. Paro the property was to revert to the heirs of Ralla Ram. But so long Smt. Ananti Devi was there she was also entitled to succeed to the property, vis-a-vis the present appellants and she had a subsisting and a pre-existing right of maintenance as already stated above and that way also these authorities will have no relevancy and the judgments of 1927 also will not operate res judicata. 18. The respondents have also argued that Smt. Ananti Devi had be come the owner of the property by adverse possession, but this argument should not detain us because we have already held that Smt. Ananti Devi had acquired the ownership right of the land by virtue of the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 19. Since we have found that Smt. Ananti Devi became the absolute owner of the property as she was in possession of the property on the date of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in view of her pre-existing right of maintenance against the property of her deceased husband, therefore, there could be no bar for her in alienating the property after 7th June, 1956 and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the gift of the property. 20. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree, passed by the Court below, are affirmed. Appeal dismissed.