(1) AFTER hearing leamed counsel forthe appellants we find no reason to differ fromthe conclusion arrived at bythe High court. Inthe case in hand, Smt. Phulman had alienatedthe property byexecution of a registred patta dated Jeth 15 Samvat 2002 (corresponding tothe year 1946 and therefore she was not possessed ofthe property withinthe meaning of S. 14 ofthe Hindu Succession Act, 1956 whenthe Act came into force i.e. on 15/06/1956, either actual or constructive or in any form recognised by law by reason ofthe cration of occupancy rights in favour of Nauranga,the predecessor-in-title ofthe appellants.the cration of occupancy rights by Smt. Phulman was successfully impeached by a suit brought by Rambhuthe daughterS son of Smt. Phul- man as a reversioner and he obtained a declaratory decree thatthe alination ofthe property was null and void, as againstthe reversioners and that decree undoubtediy survived.the object ofthe Act was to improvethe lgal status ofthe Hindu women enlarging their limited estate into an absolute one provided they were in possession ofthe property whenthe Act came into force and were therefore in a position to take advantage of its bnficiai provisions.the Act was not intended to benefit alines who with their eyes open purchasedthe property fromthe owners without justifying necessity beforethe Act came into force and at a time whenthe vendors had oniy a limited interest of Hindu widows. lt therefore follows thatthe beneFit of S. 14 ofthe Act could not be availed of bythe purchaser i.e. Nauranga,the predecessor- in-title ofthe appellants, who is bound bythe decree obtained bythe reversioners.the appeal is accordingly dismissed. CMP No. 6138 of 1987- (2) APPLICATION for contempt is dismissed.