B.B. DEB, J.— I have heard Mr A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr A. Bimol, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr R.K. Sanajaoba, learned senior counsel being assisted by Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This composite petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioners assailing the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Manipur East in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 16/2001 and 17/2001, arising out of Original Suit No. 1/2000. 3. A title suit bearing No. O.S. 1/2000 has been filed by Smti. Thangjam Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi seeking declaration of title, partition of her share and cancellation of gift deed. The plaintiff arrayed as many as 9 (nine) defendants, of whom defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are her own sons. During the pendency of the suit, the principal defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a petition seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff having no right, title and interest over the suit land filed the suit. The parties to the suit have been/are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law and since the original owner, the husband of the plaintiff died in 1947, the plaintiff being widow acquired no right, title and interest over the property left by her late husband Thangjam Raghumani Singh. While the aforesaid petition was pending, the plaintiff filed a petition under order XXIII Rule 1A of the C.P.C. for abandonment of her suit. On the same date her sons, defendant Nos. 7,8 and 9, filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXIII Rule 1A of the CPC seeking transposition of their name as plaintiffs. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties allowed both the petitions by the impugned order dated 16.5.2001. The learned trial Court allowed the plaintiff to abandon her suit and allowed the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to be transposed as plaintiffs in the suit. 4. Aggrieved, the principal defendant Nos. 1 to 6 challenged the aforesaid orders contending, inter alia, that the original suit was filed by Smti. Thangjam Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi, the sole plaintiff, having no right, title and interest over the suit property and as such the learned trial Court should not have allowed the defendant Nos. 4. Aggrieved, the principal defendant Nos. 1 to 6 challenged the aforesaid orders contending, inter alia, that the original suit was filed by Smti. Thangjam Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi, the sole plaintiff, having no right, title and interest over the suit property and as such the learned trial Court should not have allowed the defendant Nos. 7,8 and 9 to be transposed as plaintiff. The main crux of attack is that in a non-maintainable suit transposition of the defendants to the status of plaintiffs is not permissible under law; as soon as the sole plaintiff abandoned her suit there cannot be any lawful transposition of one or other defendants to the status of plaintiff. 5. In developing the argument the learned senior counsel, Mr A. Nilamani Singh, for the petitioners submits that prior to enactment of (The) Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937, a Hindu woman had no right of inheritance in the property left by her deceased husband and that Act initially extended to the whole of British India and not in the princely State of Manipur till the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949" came into force in the State of Manipur with effect from 1.1.1950. Under the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 among other Central Act, (The) Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937 has been made applicable to the State of Manipur and thus the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to 1.1.1950 (The) Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937 had no manner of application in the State of Manipur. The husband of the plaintiff having been admittedly died in 1947, she acquired no title in the property left by her husband and as such having no lawful title, she filed the suit. 6. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, Mr R.K. Sanajaoba having referred the Customary Laws of Manipuri as prevailed at the relevant time submits that though the plaintiff did not inherit the property left by her husband yet in view of the Customary law of inheritance she acquired some limited interest over the property for the purpose of her maintenance and residence. The Manipuri Customary Laws have been codified by the Codification Committee and have been followed by the State Government and the Courts of law for the purpose of ascertaining the customs prevailed in the Manipuri Community. The Manipuri Customary Laws have been codified by the Codification Committee and have been followed by the State Government and the Courts of law for the purpose of ascertaining the customs prevailed in the Manipuri Community. In Chapter IV of the codified customary laws under caption 'Inheritance', the rights of Hindu Manipuri widows have been codified. Clause 5 and 9 of the aforementioned Chapter are relevant to decide the case and the same are reproduced below:- "5. In the absence of sons - a widow succeeds to the property of her husband in which she has only life interest. She is not entitled to alienate that property without any legal necessity and permission of the Court. 9. A widow is entitled to maintain and residence, both out of the property by her husband, along with her sons. Generally some of the property is kept apart from her maintenance which she enjoys during her life time. After her death that goes to her sons or daughters as the case may be." 7. Taking aid from the aforequoted customary provision, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that on the death of her husband in 1947, the widow along with her minor sons having acquired some limited right started continuing possession of the property left by her husband but for convenient sake and for security reason she shifted her residence and started living in her parents house with her minor sons, wherefrom she managed the cultivation etc. of the property left by her husband and as such in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 she became full owner of the property left by her husband to the extent of her share as Class-I heir under the schedule of Hindu Succession Act. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act prescribes that "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." 8. Mr R.K. Sanajaoba, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that since from the date of death of her husband in 1947 she along with her minor sons has been possessing the suit land left by her deceased husband, in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act she acquired full ownership over the suit land. 9. Mr R.K. Sanajaoba, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that since from the date of death of her husband in 1947 she along with her minor sons has been possessing the suit land left by her deceased husband, in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act she acquired full ownership over the suit land. 9. Mr A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior courisekfor the petitioners having relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Eramma, appellant-Vs-Veerupana and others, respondents, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1879 submits that unless the widow (plaintiff) acquires some sorts of title before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, the provision of Section 14(1) of the said Act cannot be made applicable to her. The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the effect and implication of the Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act in paragraph 7 of the afore-quoted citation. 10. On careful perusal of the aforequoted decision it reveals that in order to get benefit of the provision of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, it is to be proved that the female Hindu already acquired some kind of title over the property concerned. The Parliament very cautiously used the word * owner' in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act instead of using the term * interest'. A mere possession of the property left by her husband in 1947, the female Hindu cannot claim to have perfected ownership pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, unless her possession is backed by acquiring some sort of title. In the present case under the Manipuri Customary law the widow plaintiff on the death gf her husband in 1947 acquired no title over the land and her right was confined to get maintenance from the property and the right of he* own residence and as such in my considered opinion the provision of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is of no avail to the plaintiff and therefore the suit was filed by her having no right, title and ownership over the suit property. 11. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, Mr R.K. Sanajaoba submits that in view of Rule 1A of Order XXIII of the C.P.C. even after abandonment of the suit by a sole plaintiff, the defendant or some of them may seek for transposition as plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The aforesaid provision has been incorporated by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. A careful perusal of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the C.P.C. reveals that even in case suit is fully abandoned by a plaintiff, the defendant or some of them could maintain the suit seeking transposition of their status as plaintiff and that should be done if the Court is so satisfied in exercise of power under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. 12. In the present case admittedly the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 being sons acquired absolute title in the property left by their deceased father by way of inheritance. Though the suit was filed by the mother having arrayed them as defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9, their right to seek for transposition as plaintiff cannot be treated to have been waived on the abandonment of the suit by the sole plaintiff, their mother, and as such in my considered opinion, even a suit is abandoned at the instance of the sole plaintiff, one or other at the defendants could maintain the suit seeking transposition of his/their status as plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. 13. Under the aforesaid analytical discussion, I am of the considered opinion to hold that though the widow of late Thangjam Raghumani Singh filed the suit as plaintiff having acquired no title/ ownership over the suit land, yet her sons defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 could maintain the suit seeking transposition of their status as plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 1A read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. in the event of her suit being abandoned on the strength of their (sons) independent right of inheritance and as such the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the transposition of defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 as plaintiff appears to be within his jurisdiction and in doing so the learned trial Court committed no jurisdictional error nor it occassioned any failure of justice and as such it calls for no interference under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 14. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Interlocutory order granted earlier stands vacated. 15. Send down the lower Court records.