Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. This appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 18-2-76 and the consquential decree dated 22 3-1976 passed by Sub-Judge, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 131 of 1971. The suit was filed for setting aside certain deeds of transfer in respect of the properties mentioned in the three schedules of the plaint on the ground that the defendant Kaushalya Ojhain, the vendor under the sale and gift deeds had no title or interest in the schedule properties and it was the plaintiffs, who are rightful owners in respect thereof. 2. I may first summarise the foundational facts. One Bhukan Jha had three sons, namely, Ramji Jha, Roop Lal and Sarup Lal. The family was governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The said three brothers separated from each other by affecting a partition by metes and bounds. The name of the wife of Ramji was Sulokhi. He had three issues being two daughters and one son. The daughters were Sarjug Mishram (Plaintiff No. 1) and Sampat Ojhain (Plaintiff No. 2). The son was Sonelal and the name of his wife was Kaushalya (Defendant No. 1). The original plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 have died during pendency of the appeal and in their places their heirs have brought on the record. 3. The case of the two plaintiffs was that their father had died in 1936 leaving behind him the said Sulekhi, Sonelal, the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. Their further case is that Sonelal had died in 1927 and Sulekhi had died in 1951, Therefore, according to them keeping in view the law of succession applicable under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, they were the rightful heirs of the properties in question and since they were living with their husbands, the properties were left to be looked after by Defendant No. 1, which was being managed by heirs on their behalf. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 under some collusion acted fraudulently in executing sale-deeds and gift-deeds in question to the detriment of the plaintiffs, which being void and inoperative need to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, according to the contesting Defendant, Ramji had died in 1944 whereas Sonelal predeceased him in 1927. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 under some collusion acted fraudulently in executing sale-deeds and gift-deeds in question to the detriment of the plaintiffs, which being void and inoperative need to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, according to the contesting Defendant, Ramji had died in 1944 whereas Sonelal predeceased him in 1927. Therefore, according to the defendant, keeping in view the provisions under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 (In short the Act only) Defendant No. 1 being the only heir was competent in law to inherit the said properties and, as such, the transactions affected by her are valid and unassailable. 5. The trial Court on appreciation of documentary and oral evidence placed on record, has recorded a finding of fact that Sonclal had died in 1927 and Ramji had died in 1944. For coming to the said conclusion the court below has referred to the certified copy of the Kabuliat (Ext. E) dated 17-3-1939 which conclusively shows that Ramji was alive till that date. The court apart from other documents has taken note of the registered deed (Ext.3/b) dated 31-1-1928, the recital whereof shows that by that time Kaushalya (Defendant No. 1) had become widow. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants keeping in view the documentary and oral evidence and the reasonings given by the trial court, could not assail the correctness of these findings. Accordingly, it is hold that Ramji had died in 1944 and his Sonelal had died earlier to him in 1927. It is a common case of both the parties that Sulekhi had died in 1951. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual background, the question which emerges for consideration is as to who had succereded Ramji and Suleki after their respective deaths in 1944 and 1951. For seeking an answer to the said question, since the statutory provisions had superseded the customary law applicable to Hindus, the provisions thereof are to be looked into at the first instance. The two relevant Acts are The Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . 6. For seeking an answer to the said question, since the statutory provisions had superseded the customary law applicable to Hindus, the provisions thereof are to be looked into at the first instance. The two relevant Acts are The Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . 6. Sec. 3 (3) of the 1937 Act reads as under: 3(1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow all his widows together, shall subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son: Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a sons son if there is surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son: Provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. 7. From the above referred provisions, it is quite clear that after the death of Ramji both Sulekhi being his widow and Kaushalya being the widow of his predeceased son, inherited the properties in equal shares. But the interest devolving on them was a limited interest known as Hindu Womens estate. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case or Satrughan Isser V/s. Smt. Subujpari and Ors. -- , it is now well settled that on determination of widows estate pursuant to death, her interest on the coparcenary property will revest upon the heirs of her husband. Therefore, the life interest of Sulekhi after her death in 1951 also devolved on Kaushalya (Defendant No. 1). 8. Admittedly, Kaushalya had died on 28-8-1979, i.e. after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , Sec. 14(1) whereof reads as under: 14. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. 9. 8. Admittedly, Kaushalya had died on 28-8-1979, i.e. after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , Sec. 14(1) whereof reads as under: 14. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, there is no escape from holding that the limited interest of Kaushalya in the properties in question, which were admittedly possessed by her, became absolute thereby making her full owner of the properties entitling her to deal in those properties. See decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bai Vajia V/s. Thakorbhai Chelabhai -- and Yaddeboyina Tulasamma V/s. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddy AIR 1977 SC 1944 . In this view of the matter, I am in full agreement with the Court below that none of the sale or gift deeds in question are bad for want of title. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.