Short Note : 1. The deceased Sitaram has left behind two widows viz., Jhumkibai and Bhuribai, defendant No.1. Jhumkibai was the senior widow. She adopted the plaintiff Thakrya in the year 1946 and also executed a deed of adoption on 12-1-1964. Jhumkibai is dead. Sitaram has left property consisting of residential house and certain agricultural lands. Bhuribai adopted Balya who is defendant No.2. She also executed a deed of gift in favour of Balya on 30-1-1964. By this deed of gift she transferred her rights in the property inherited by her from deceased Sitaram The plaintiff instituted the suit challenging the deed of gift on the ground that Bhuribai had no right in the property left behind by deceased Sitaram and the plaintiff was the sole owner of his property. The lower Court has found that Sitaram died sometimes in the year 1945-46 after Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 was brought into force in the Holkar State in the year 1940. It was, therefore, held that Bhuribai inherited the property of deceased Sitaram along with the plaintiff. It was also held that there was no partition between Bhuribai and the plaintiff and both of them have been in joint enjoyment of the property left behind by Sitaram. The Courts below have also found that the deed of gift executed by Bhuribai in favour of Balya has been proved but it has been held that it does not affect the residential house because it was undivided property of the coparcenery and Bhuribai was not entitled to transfer her share without consent of the other co-parcener. This finding has become final because it has not been challenged by the respondents. Both the Courts below have held that the deed of gift was effective in so far as the agricultural lands were concerned. Held: Shri D.P.Vohra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Bhuribai had only a limited right and, therefore, she could not transfer the Property to anyone and, therefore, the deed of gift was invalid. This contention is not well founded because the limited interest of Bhuribai ripened into full estate by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Held: Shri D.P.Vohra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Bhuribai had only a limited right and, therefore, she could not transfer the Property to anyone and, therefore, the deed of gift was invalid. This contention is not well founded because the limited interest of Bhuribai ripened into full estate by virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. After the Hindu Succession Act came into force Bhuribai became full owner of the property inherited by her from her husband Sitaram and she was fully competent to transfer her interest in the suit property She as the female Pucca tenant under the Madhya Bharat land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and as Bhumiswami under the M.P. Land Revenue Code was also competent to transfer her interest in the agricultural lands left behind by deceased Sitaram. Therefore, the deed of gift executed by her on 30-1-1964 in favour of Balya is not liable to be challenged by the plaintiff on the ground that she was not competent to do so. Appeal dismissed.