JUDGMENT : B.L. Yadav, J. This is Defendant’s second appeal in a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondents for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant-Appellant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s management of the temple and its property. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Plaintiff-Respondents filed a suit with the allegations that one Mahangu Chaubey has agricultural plots and non-agricultural property in village Mohammadpur Dhonghadin Mutalika Rajapur, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur. He died leaving his widow Smt. Parkali Kunwar. After his death his widow installed a temple of Sri Shiv Ji and Sri Mahadeo Ji. In order to perpetuate the memory of her deceased husband and for maintaining Ram Bhog etc. in the temple, she executed a registered deed of endownment dated 24th January 1921 dedicating a part of the property. She appointed herself as a Sarvarahkar of the temple and it was further provided that after her death the matter of Sarvarahkar ship shall be decided by the Court. Hanuman Chaubey, the Plaintiff’s father and Shankh-dhar Chaubey, the father of the Defendant No. 2 in the present suit, had instituted a suit No. 50 of 1921 for cancellation of the deed of endownment. Another suit no 78 of 1921 was filed by Ram Swaroop Chaubey for cancellation of the aforesaid deed of endownment on the basis that he was the reversioner of Mahangu Chaubey husband of Smt. Prakali Kunwar. A compromise was arrived at on 25th May, 1921 in both the suits and it was agreed by the parties that Smt. Parkali Kunwar would continue as Sarvarahkar of the temple till her life time as limited owner and thereafter Hanuman-Chaubey and Shankhdhar Chaubey will be entitled to act as Sarvarahkars. It was also provided that it shall be open to the court to appoint proper person as Sarvarahkar in case there was some mismanagement. In pursuance of this compromise suit No. 50 of 1921 was decreed and suit No. 73 of 1921 was dismissed. It was further alleged that till her death on 29th September, 1970 A.D. Smt. Parkali Kunwar remained Sarvarhkar and meanwhile Hanuman Chaubey and Shankhdhar Chaubey also died. The Plaintiffs were the sons of Hanuman Chaubey, so they were entitled to succeed as Sarvarahkars. They applied for mutation but the same was opposed by the Defendant, who got his name entered in the khatauni and also in other documents as Saravarahkar. The Plaintiffs were the sons of Hanuman Chaubey, so they were entitled to succeed as Sarvarahkars. They applied for mutation but the same was opposed by the Defendant, who got his name entered in the khatauni and also in other documents as Saravarahkar. Before her death Smt. Parkali Kunwar adopted the Defendant Sadanand Chaubey on 9-3-1962 and the adoption deed was registered on 12-3-1962 and she also executed a will dated 15-12-1966, in favour of the Defendant and also appointed him as Sarvarahkar. A Gift deed dated 24-11-69 was also executed in favour of the Defendant. It was further alleged that the adoption, Will deed and Gift deed were illegal and the Defendant has no right hence the suit was filed for injunction. 3. The suit was contested by the Defendant-Appellant who denied the plaint allegations and averred that after the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 (for short the Act) prior to the death of Smt. Parkali Kunwar on 29-9-1970, her interest, even as limited owner, was enlarged as full fledged owner and fresh rights were accorded by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and by Section 18 of the Act, hence the earlier compromise dated 25-5-1921 would not be binding nor shall operate as an estoppel or resjudicata, as there can be no estoppel against the Statute. It was further alleged that the deed of adoption, Will-deed and Gift-deed etc. executed by Smt. Parkali Kunwar were legal, and the Plaintiffs have no right nor they are entitled as Sarvarahkars and the Plaintiff’s suit was also barred by time and was liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned Munsif Mohammadabad, Ghazipur vide his judgment dated 28th November, 1977 dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit. The Plaintiff-Respondents preferred an appeal, before the lower appellate Court, and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 1980. The present second appeal has been filed by the Defendant-Appellant and the relief sought is that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court may be set aside and that of the trial court restored- 5. Sri V.C. Misra, learned senior counsel and Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant urged that the compromise dated 25th May, 1921 provided that Smt. Parkali Kunwar would continue as Sarvarahkar till her life time and thereafter Hanuman Chaubey etc. Sri V.C. Misra, learned senior counsel and Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant urged that the compromise dated 25th May, 1921 provided that Smt. Parkali Kunwar would continue as Sarvarahkar till her life time and thereafter Hanuman Chaubey etc. her reversioner, the predecessor of the Plaintiff-Respondents would 'become as Sarvarahkar of the temple would not operate as resjudicata or as estoppel and there can be no estoppel against the statute, as the interest of Smt. Parkali-Kunwar as limited owner became enlarged as full fledged owner by operation of law. In view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act in respect of non-agricultural land and Section 18 of the Act, in respect of agricultural land the interest of limited owner was enlarged. The compromise to the extent, that after her death the property would devolve on the reversioners, was not binding and became illegal. The court below did not appreciate the effect of change in law. The reliance was placed on Gopal Singh and Another Vs. Dile Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, (1988) 1 SCC 47 , Kalawatibai Vs. Soiryabai and others, (1991) 3 SCC 410 , Ramji Dixit and Another Vs. Bhrigunath and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1058 , that as the interest of Smt. Parkali Kunwar after enforcement of the Act was enlarged, she has legally adopted the Defendant Appellant (Sadanand Chaubey) and she has legally executed Will-deed dated 15-12-1966 and Gift-deed dated 24-11-1969, hence the decree of lower appellate Court deserves to be set-aside and the decree of trial court be restored. 6. Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondents, on the other hand urged that the compromise dated 25th May, 1921 would operate as estoppel and also as resjudicata and she was bound by it and after her death Hanuman Chaubey etc. as mentioned in the compromise deed or their heirs would become Sarvarahkars and would be entitled to manage the agricultural and non-agricultural land and Smt. Parkali Kunwar having a limited interest was not entitled either to adopt the Defendant-Appellant or execute Will-deed or Gift-deed and that the suit was correctly decreed by the lower appellate Court. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination. As to whether Smt. Parkali Kunwar would continue to have a life-estate or of a limited owner, even after enforcement of Hindu Succession Act (i.e. Section 14) and UP ZA & LR Act (i.e. Sections 18, 152, 154 & 169) and as to whether her interest was enlarged as a full owner or full Bhumidhar and as inescapable conclusion whether compromise made by her on 25th May, 1921 was binding on her and whether Gift, will and adoption made by her was valid. 8. The legislature appears to have designedly used the expressions u/s 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. which indicate that whatever might be the commitments made by the widow prior to the enforcement of this Act may be that she might have agreed to receive maintenance as a limited owner or that after her death her reversioners (i.e. the present Plaintiffs) would get right to manage the agricultural and non-agricultural properties, but as the widow was in possession when Hindu Succession Act came in force, she would become an absolute owner. Either earlier compromise entered into by her would not be binding or would not operate as an estoppel as there is no estoppel against statute. The mere right of getting maintenance or getting life estate itself is sufficient to confer on her in view of Section 14(1) the rights of a full owner. Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 99 , Gulwant Kaur and Another Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 674 . 9. The mere right of getting maintenance or getting life estate itself is sufficient to confer on her in view of Section 14(1) the rights of a full owner. Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 99 , Gulwant Kaur and Another Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 674 . 9. In Gopal Singh v. Dile Ram (supra) a civil suit was filed for declaration that the gift of properties made by the widow, before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 who had only life interest was not binding, a compromise decree was passed and gift was to be not binding and was ineffective, the result was that the widow remained limited owner, but she had executed a will after enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that her limited estate became absolute estate hence will of the properties made by her subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was valid and legal and she was not bound by earlier compromise. 10. In Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 572 , where a Hindu widow regains possession of a property (in which she had a limited ownership) subsequent to the commencement of the Act upon transfer of very same property to her by the transferee in whose favour she had transferred it prior to commencement of the Act, she would became to absolute owner on the limited estate or limited ownership of a Hindu female would enlarge into an absolute estate or full ownership of the property. Gulwant Kaur and Another Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 674 . 11. In Kalawatibai Vs. Soiryabai and others, (1991) 3 SCC 410 , Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. speaking for the Bench, has held that a female Hindu possessed of the property, when the Act come into force would become absolute owner provided she was a limited owner and after the enforcement of the Act she has got all the rights of the full-fledged owner but in case her ownership was not limited her interest would not be enlarged. In the present case Smt. Parkali Kunwar was limited owner. Her life-interest was certainly enlarged by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 12. In Ramji Dixit and Another Vs. In the present case Smt. Parkali Kunwar was limited owner. Her life-interest was certainly enlarged by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 12. In Ramji Dixit and Another Vs. Bhrigunath and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1058 , it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that even the land of agricultural holding, the interest of sir or khudkasht holder as a limited owner would be enlarged by virtue of Section 18 of the Act and she became full-fledged Bhumidhar (owner) after the date of vesting and she would be entitled to execute a will deed or Gift-deed. It has been well established principle that there can be no estoppel against the statute. In Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and Others Vs. Valluri Jagannadha Rao and Others, AIR 1967 SC 591 , it was held that a compromise was not a decision by Court, rather it sets the seal if court on agreement of parties in it would not operate as resjudicata but would only operate as estoppel 13. In Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India, JT 1991 SC 15 (Civil Appeal No. 3698 of 1991. decided on 20-9-1991) it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that consent decree if not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake has the binding force of resjudicata. There can be no doubt, apart from the effect of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and Sections 18, 134, 152, 169(2) and Sections 171 & 174 of UP ZA & LR Act, compromise decree dated 25-5-1991 would not operate as estoppel as there can be no estoppel against the statute. Smt Parkali Kunwar was not bound by the compromise after the enforcement of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act and Section 18 of the Act and her limited interest became enlarged and she became full-fledged owner and Bhumidher and she has got right to adopt Defendant-Appellant on 9-3-62 She could also execute a Will-deed or Gift-deed in favour of the Defendant-Appellant. The court below did not consider the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 18 of the Act and effect of change of law introduced by the legislature. 14. The court below did not consider the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 18 of the Act and effect of change of law introduced by the legislature. 14. In my opinion, in the present case also earlier compromise dated 25th May, 1921 arrived at in civil suit No 78 of 1921 and civil suit No. 50 of 1921, was not binding on Smt. Parkali Icunwar after enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as Section 14(1) had the effect of ripening her possession of the property into full ownership and gift and will executed by her and adoption made by her, adopting the Appellant, was valid and legal. The compromise made by her would not operate as resjudicata or estoppel as there is no estoppel against statute 15. For the reasons aforesaid the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set-side and that of the trial court restored with costs throughout and the suit of the Plaintiff-Respondents stands dismissed