Order B.P.SINGH, P.K.SARKAR, JJ. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4th March, 1986, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 1043/71. 2. By the impugned Judgment, the order of the court below dismissing the suit has been set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent nO.1 herein) had been decreed. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that one Dharichhan Missir had two wives, namely, Singari Kuer and Mukhrani Kuer (defendant no.6). Singari predeceased her husband. Dharichhan Missir executed a registered deed of will on 10th December, 1945, making a disposition in favour of his second wife Mukhrani Kuer, granting her a life estate in all his movable and immovable properties and providing that after her death, his two daughters, namely, Maya Devi (plaintiff) and Lalita Devi (defendant no. 7) will succeed to the properties in equal share. Dharichhan Missir died soon the execution of the will, and his second wife Mukhrani Kuer (defendant no.6) came in possession of the estate left behind by him on the basis of letters of administration issued in her favour. It appears that Mukharni Kuer (defendant no.6) executed two sale deeds on 13.3.64 and four sale deeds or 13.2.65 in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 5 who are respondent nos.2 to 5 in the instant appeal. It may here be noticed that Dharichhan Missir had one daughter namely Maya Devi (Plaintiff) from his first wife Singari Kuer, while the second daughter Lalita Devi was born through his second wife Mukhrani Kuer. The aforesaid Lalita Devi was defendant no.7 in the suit. 3. Maya Devi, one of the daughters of Dharichhan Missir filed a suit for declaration that the two sale-deeds dated 13.3.64 and four sale-deeds dated 13.2.65 executed by defendant no.6 Mukhrani Kuer in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 5 were not binding on her and on the heirs of Dharichhan Missir, and it was prayed that a declaration be granted that defendant nos. 1 to 5 did not acquire any title on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds. 1 to 5 were not binding on her and on the heirs of Dharichhan Missir, and it was prayed that a declaration be granted that defendant nos. 1 to 5 did not acquire any title on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds. The crucial question which arose for consideration was whether Mukhrani Kuer, defendant no.6, a legatee under the Will, only acquired a life estate, or whether the life estate conferred on her by Will became an absolute estate by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court dismissed the suit holding that Mukhrani Kuer (defendant no.6) became the absolute owner of the properties by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act and, therefore, she was competent to sell the properties in question in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and. Decree of the trial court, the plaintiff Maya Devi preferred an appeal before this Court which has been allowed. The learned Judge disposing of the appeal took the view that the Will created only a life estate in favour of Mukhrani Kuer (defendant no.6). Such a life estate did not get enlarged into an absolute estate by operation of sub-section(1) of Section 14 of the Act. The learned Judge placed reliance upon a Judgment of Supreme Court reported in A.I.A. 1971 Supreme Court, 745. He held that where property is held on the basis of Will, sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act is not attracted, and the case is governed by sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Act. 5. It is difficult to uphold the Judgment of the learned Judge having regard to several decisions of Supreme Court particularly in V. Tulasama and others Vs. V. Sesha Reddi reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C 1944 wherein it has been held that whatever be the kind of property, movable or immovable, and whichever be the mode of acquisition, it would be covered by sub-section(1) of S.14, the object of the legislature being to wipe out the disabilities from which a Hindu female suffered in regard to ownership of property under the old Sastric Law, to abridge the stringent provisions against proprietary rights which were often regarded as evidence of her perpetual tutelage and to recognise her status as an independent and absolute owner of the property. Sub-section (2) must, therefore, be read in the context of sub-section(1) so as to leave as large a scope for operation as possible to subsection(1) and so read, it must be confined to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award, the terms of which prescribe a restricted estate in the property. 6. A recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1996, S.C.1697, has reaffirmed the law as laid down in V. Tulasammas case (supra) and has also referred to the decisions which lay down the law to the same effect. 7. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1996, S.C.1697, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge must be set aside and it must be held that Mukhrani Kuer being the widow of the testator, acquired property in recognition of her preexisting right to maintenance under Sastric law as envisaged in the will. It was not a right acquired for the first time under the instrument of Will, but it was a reflection of the pre-existing right under the Sastric law, which blossomed into an absolute ownership after 1956 under Section 14(1) of the Act. On the date of sale i.e. in the year 1964, she was absolute owner of the properties sold by her under the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5. Maya Devi, the plaintiff could not, therefore, challenge the validity of the sale-deeds. 8. This appeal is, therefore, allowed The Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge in appeal from Original Decree No. 1043/71 is set aside and the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court is restored. There will be no order as to costs.