JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—This second appeal has beer, filed by plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment of reversal. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants stands allowed resulting in the dismissal of the suit. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants. On Kishan Dayal was admittedly the owner of the suit property and is said to have died in the year 1982. He left behind Amar Singh, Prem Singh as his sons who are the plaintiffs before this Court and Smt. Devki Devi widow, who is defendant No. 1. 2. Before his death Kishan Dayal executed a will which is dated 18th August, 1981 and is placed on record as Ext. PW4/A. In the said will the property held by him was willed in favour of the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 1. It was, however, stipulated that the widow Devki Devi shall be limited owner and further shall have no right to alienate her share in the suit land. 3. Devki Devi defendant No. 1 gifted her share in the suit land in favour of one Amin Chand who has been impleaded by the plaintiffs as defendant No. 2. This gift deed is dated 25th March, 1986 and has been challenged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 was incompetent to gift this land in favour of Amin Chand as she was only a limited owner and got her rights under the will from her deceased husband Kishan Dayal. The property was said to be ancestral qua the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and it was further pleaded that the parties are governed by the custom in the matter of succession in alienation. The gift has been challenged by the plaintiffs as not binding on their reversionary rights to succeed the share of defendant No. 1 after her death. 4. The suit was resisted that defendant No. 1 inherited the suit land from her husband as absolute owner and the parties are not governed by custom. It has been stated that being an absolute owner of her share, she had full right to gift the land in favour of defendant No. 3. 5. 4. The suit was resisted that defendant No. 1 inherited the suit land from her husband as absolute owner and the parties are not governed by custom. It has been stated that being an absolute owner of her share, she had full right to gift the land in favour of defendant No. 3. 5. On appraisal of the evidence placed on record by the parties, the trial Court granted decree to the plaintiffs as prayed for by them. 6. The first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Vaddeboyine Tulasamma and others v. Vaddeboying Sesha Reddi, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944. This position has been settled in a number of judgments and in my opinion no interference is called for by this Court in second appeal since the view taken by the first appellate Court is absolutely just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law on the point. In my considered view, defendant No. 1 Devki Devi had a pre-existing right to inherit the property of her husband being class on heir. Despite the Will Ext. PW4/A and despite restriction placed on her rights to alienate the suit land she would become absolute owner and it would be Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act which would apply in the given situation as toe widow inherits the property in recognition of her pre-existing rights. Section 14(2) of the Act will not apply in the given situation. 7. So far as the applicability of custom is concerned, this question too stands answered by this Court in case Kartari Devi. V. Tota Ram, 1992(1) Sim. L.C. 402. 8. Under Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a female does not succeed under custom but under Hindu law. A custom which is inconsistent with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act stands abrogated. It can thus be safely held that the customary law shall not apply in the present case. For the reasons give above, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed and there shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.