JUDGMENT 1. - The question arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the property held by a Hindu female in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance would become her absolute property under the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whether she has a right to alienate that property after coming into force of the Act when she had become the absolute owner of the same. 2. One Dasonda Singh had three sons Bachan Singh, Shyam Singh and Bakshish Singh and on the death of his first wife he married to one Mst. Maha Kaur widow of Prem Singh. Mst. Maha Kaur had a son Sampuransingh from the loins of her earlier husband Prem Singh and respondents No. 4 and 5 Bikar Singh and Modan Singh, sons of Sampuran Singh and thus, grand-sons of Mst. Maha Kaur. On the death of Dasonda Singh somewhere in 1940, a dispute about the inheritance arose between the three sons of the on hand and Mst. Maha Kaur widow on the other hand. When an appeal was pending in this respect before the Revenue Officer, the parties settled the dispute through a compromise attested by the Revenue Officer on 16-12-1940, and Mst. Maha Kaur was given 30 bighas of land out of the estate left by her husband for the purposes of her maintenance for life with the rider that she would have no right of alienation and in the event of her death, the said land was reverted back to the three sons of Dasonda Singh. Mst. Maha Kaur is admitted to have died on 12-6-1976, and before her death she executed a registered Tamliknama on 31-7-1968, in favour of respondents Bikar Singh and Modan Singh her grand-sons from her first husband. 3. Two suits were filed on by the sons of Dasonda Singh for possession of the land in question in the hands of the above said respondents and one by the said respondents against the sons of Dasonda Singh for permanent injunction. Both the suits were consolidated and the suit filed by the above said respondents was decreed and the suit filed by the sons of Dasonda Singh was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 12-8-1981, and an appeal was filed by the heirs of Dasonda Singh i. e. Bachan Singh son of Dasonda Singh and Balbir Kaur, daughter of Bakshish Singh. The other heirs of Dasonda Singh were impleaded as proforma respondents. This appeal came to be decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide the judgment dated 12-9-1983, Annexure 2 and the same was dismissed. A second appeal was taken against these decisions to the Board of Revenue and that again was dismissed vide the judgment dated 20-10-1992, Annexure 3. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) JT SC 535, Smt. Gumpha v. Jaibai, for the proposition that the acquisition of property under a will by a Hindu Female creating life interest in her favour whether she becomes an absolute owner by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with explanation subsists. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that life estate of a widow under a will does not get enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 5. We have gone through this judgment very carefully. It may be stated that the question which was decided in this authority has been put in para 1 of the judgment and is reproduced hereunder:- 1. Does the life estate of a widow under a will executed in 1941, gets enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (in brief 'the Act') if the succession opened after death of the testator in 1958, is the question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)." 6. The present case is clearly distinguishable, since here the sons of Dasonda Singh entered into a compromise with Mst. Maha Kaur as early as on 16-12-1940, and 30 bighas of land was given to her in lieu of pre-existing right of maintenance and she came to occupy this land under the compromise deed, which fact is not disputed, in the mean-time, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted. On the strength of Section 14 she became the absolute owner of the property, which she had received in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance. The aforesaid decision pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even remotely attracted to facts of the present case. On the strength of Section 14 she became the absolute owner of the property, which she had received in lieu of her pre-existing right of maintenance. The aforesaid decision pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not even remotely attracted to facts of the present case. Since their Lordships were dealing with a case where the acquisition of the property had come to the Hindu female under a will and the provisions of Section 14, have been interpreted in view of Section 30 of the Act, which deals with testamentary succession. 7. The present case is squarely covered by Vaddeoyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by. L. Rs., AIR 1977 SC 1944 . This famous case of V. Tulasamma overruled the earlier decision given by the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 2198 , (Smt. Naraini Devi v. Smt. Ramo Devi. It was held in this judgment "Sub-section (1) of Section 14 is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possessed by her at the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired and possessed, she would become the full owner of the property. Sub-section (2) is more in the nature of a proviso or exception to subsection (1). The said provision is calculated to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social and economic position of woman in Hindu society. 8. The same view was reiterated in the same volume at page 2024 in the case of Santhanam Kachapalaya Gurukkal v. V. Subramanya Gurukkal, AIR 1977 SC 2024 ; by their Lordships, that widow of a deceased coparcener in possession of part of joint family properties allotted to her for life in lieu of maintenance without any power of alienation and widow dying in possession after the Act came into force, the case would fall under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not under Section 14(2). 9. 9. The same view was taken in Gopal Singh v. Dile Ram (dead) by L. Rs., AIR 1987 SC 2394 , where their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the same provision held that a widow having life interest making a gift of the properties before the Act came into force but by a compromise decree in the suit that the gift was not binding and the gift was declared ineffective and later the widow made a will in respect of the property subsequent to the coming into force of 1956 Act. It was held that the will was valid as the widow who continued to be the limited owner of the properties, after the decree, until 1956, when the Hindu Succession Act came into operation, by virtue of Section 14, her limited estate became absolute estate and as such the will of the properties made by the widow was valid. The present case is squarely covered by these decisions. 10. There is hardly any scope in this petition in view of the settled proposition of law stated above. The petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******