Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 488 (PNJ)

Tara Mani v. Narinder Kumar

2002-05-02

M.L.SINGHAL

body2002
Judgment 1. There was one Raisahib Balla Ram. He had two sons, namely, Lahori Mal and Basant Lal. Lahori Mal had two daughters, namely, Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani. Narinder Kumar plaintiff is the son of Shri Basant Lal. On 28-4-1943, Civil Suit No. 199 of 1943 was filed by Miss Ram Piari now (since dead) and Smt. Tara Mani now (since dead), daughters of Lahori Mal against Shri Basant Lal, father of Shri Narinder Kumar plaintiff now (since dead) and Rajinder Lal, minor son of Shri Basant Lal, for declaration to the effect that Miss Ram Piari was in possession as owner of the property in suit including residential house, situated in Maliganj, Ludhiana bearing No. B-IV-691 as legal heir of her father late Lahori Mal and that Tara Mani plaintiff No. 2 is in joint possession with plaintiff No. 2 with her permission and consent and that defendants have no right in the presence of plaintiffs and the male issue of plaintiff No. 2 and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The said suit was decided on 9-11-1943 by Suri Maharaj Kishore, Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, in accordance with for compromise arrived at between the parties thereto. Parties to that suit made statements to the effect that the house in dispute was given to Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani (defendant No. 1) for their residence and Shri Basant Lal will have no right to interfere in any way with their right of residence till the life time of Miss Ram Piari, after whose death, the house would revert to Shri Basant Lal. Parties to the suit signed the statements made by them before the Court. Decree was accordingly passed incorporating therein the details of the compromise arrived at between the parties to that suit (Civil Suit No. 199 of 1943 decided by Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 4-11-1943). Basant Lal died on 7-11-1974. During his life time, he had executed a Will on 25-6-1971 which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana, while in sound disposing mind. As per that Will, the house in dispute was to devolve upon Narinder Kumar son of Basant Lal plaintiff. Miss Ram Piari died on 2-1-1976. Similarly, in accordance with decree dated 9-11-1913 based on compromise and the Will left by Shri Basant Lal. As per that Will, the house in dispute was to devolve upon Narinder Kumar son of Basant Lal plaintiff. Miss Ram Piari died on 2-1-1976. Similarly, in accordance with decree dated 9-11-1913 based on compromise and the Will left by Shri Basant Lal. Narinder Kumar became owner and is entitled to possession of the house in dispute. Miss Ram Piari was given only the right of residence. She had no right to transfer the house to anybody in any manner, She and her sister Smt. Tara Mani could enjoy the right of residence only till the life time of Miss Ram Piari. None of them had any right to accommodate any other person or to part with possession of the house in any way. But wrongly and illegally, Miss Ram Piari during her life time allowed to accommodate Surinder Kumar, Om Parkash and Smt. Parvati Devi (defendants Nos. 2 to 4) in different portions of the house in dispute shown in red, yellow and blue colour respectively, while the portion shown in green is in possession of Smt. Tara Mani (defendant No. 1 herself). Possession of the said portion is wrongful and unjustified qua plaintiff Narinder Kumar. They are accordingly trespassers and are bound to deliver vacant possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. On these allegations, Narinder Kumar son of Basant Lal filed suit for possession of H. No. IV-691 situated in Maliganj, Ludhiana shown in red, yellow, blue, green and white colour in the plan attached to the plaint against Smt. Tara Mani (defendant No. 1), Surinder Kumar son of unknown, Om Parkash son of unknown and Smt. Parvati Devi wife of unknown. 2. Smt. Tara Mani defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that she and Miss Ram Piari were the owners of the house in dispute and they filed suit in the Civil Court which was compromised. (Reference is to suit No. 1999 of 1993 decided by Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 9-11-1943). On the death of Lahori Mal, she and her sister Miss Ram Piari inherited their father Shri Lahori Mals property including the house in dispute as heirs and under his will. (Reference is to suit No. 1999 of 1993 decided by Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana on 9-11-1943). On the death of Lahori Mal, she and her sister Miss Ram Piari inherited their father Shri Lahori Mals property including the house in dispute as heirs and under his will. Having thus acquired the right, title and interest in the property in dispute, any subsequent decree as alleged restricting their right to the right of residence and that too till the life time of Ram Piari would be absolutely ineffective and irrelevant. Even if there was any restriction on the ownership of defendant No. 1 and her sister in the property in dispute prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the said restriction stood removed when the said Act came into force and Miss Ram Piari became full and absolute owner of the suit property under S. 14(1) of the said Act. After the death of Ram Piari, this house devolved upon her sister Tara Mani. It was urged that the alleged judgment and decree dated 9-11-1983 were not the source of right, title and interest which she and her sister Miss Ram Piari, had acquired on the death of their father as heirs and under his Will. Even if it be assumed that the right, title and interest of Miss Ram Piari were superior to these of Smt. Tara Mani, Smt. Tara Mani became full owner of the property on the death of Miss Ram Piari as her heir. She and Miss Ram Piari being the full-fledged owner of the property being the heirs of their father Lahori Mal, they under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, could deal with the property in dispute in any manner they liked as full and absolute owners. 3. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 also contested the suit of the plaintiff by urging that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in dispute. Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani were the absolute owners of the property. If there were any restriction on their rights, so far as the property in dispute is concerned, that restriction stood obliterated because of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. (It may be mentioned here that the Hindu Succession Act came into force w.e.f. 17-6-1956). 4. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. (It may be mentioned here that the Hindu Succession Act came into force w.e.f. 17-6-1956). 4. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether Basant Lal left any Will in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the possession of the defendant is wrongful and unjustified qua the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether Miss Ram Piari had become owner of the property in dispute under the Hindu Succession Act? OPD 5. Whether defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property in dispute? OPD. 6. Whether Lahori Mal had made any Will? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 8. Relief. 5. Vide order dated 26-9-1977 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed in view of the findings that the Will dated 23-11-1941 was executed by Lahori Mal, which Will is the source of right, which Smt. Tara Mani and her deceased sister Miss Ram Piari acquired to the estate of their late father Lahori Mal. As per this Will, Lahori Mal possessed one estate at Kesarganj and another near Puj-Ki Sarai and other in Meena Bazar, besides shops with two residential houses opposite the Municipal Garden on the Town Hall road and a residential house in Maliganj and also fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 14,000.00 in the Punjab National Bank Limited, Ludhiana in his name and that of Ram Piari. As per that Will, his daughters Ram Piari and Tara Mani would have right to this deposit and would also enjoy the income of the aforesaid property till they are alive and after them, the property shall revert to his collaterals except that four shops opposite Town Hall, shall be sold and the income applied to a charitable purpose in the name of his father Rai Sahib Ralla Ram. It was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Will, however, relates to other properties which are not in issue in their suit and hence he need not describe them. It was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Will, however, relates to other properties which are not in issue in their suit and hence he need not describe them. It was further observed that the testator wished that Ram Piari and Tara Mani shall have right to enjoy the income of the house in dispute till Smt. Ram Piari and Tara Mani are alive and after them the property shall revert to the collaterals of the testator, Lahori Mal. It was observed that undisputedly this Will is the source of right of the defendants in the property in dispute. Her acquisition therefore fails within the meaning of S. 14(2) of the Act. It was also found that vide compromise decree, which was passed on 9-11-1943 by Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, the mode of devolution of the property was changed. It was agreed between Ram Piari and Tara Mani on one hand and Basant Lal on the other hand that Basant Lal will have no right to interfere with the right of residence of Ram Piari and Tara Mani in the house in dispute till the life time of Ram Piari and after whose death, the house will revert to Basant Lal. It was found that the compromise decree conferred restricted estate" on Ram Piari and Tara Mani. After the death of Ram Piari, the house in dispute would revert to deceased Basant Lal, Tara Mani and Ram Piari both could not enter into such compromise which formed the basis of the decree beyond the scope of the Will executed by Lahori Mal. The Will dated 23-11-1941 cannot be said to have been merged in the said decree dated 9-11-1943. It was found as such the suit of the plaintiff is premature. Narinder Kumar may claim the property in dispute being the sole heir of deceased Basant Lal when it reverts to him on the death of Tara Mani. During her life time, he cannot lay his hands on the property in dispute. The possession of the defendants so far as the house in dispute is concerned, is not that of a trespasser. Ram Piari deceased was a restricted owner of the property in dispute and similarly Tara Mani defendant is the "restricted owner" under S. 14(2) of the Act. The possession of the defendants so far as the house in dispute is concerned, is not that of a trespasser. Ram Piari deceased was a restricted owner of the property in dispute and similarly Tara Mani defendant is the "restricted owner" under S. 14(2) of the Act. She can only receive income of the property in dispute till her life time and she cannot alienate it in any manner, not even in acceleration of succession to the plaintiff or any other heir of Basant Lal in violation of the terms of the Will dated 23-11-1941. She is not absolute owner of the property in dispute. 6. On issue No. 1, he found that the plaintiff is the sole heir of deceased Basant Lal by virtue of Will dated 25-6-1974.On issue No. 2 he found that the possession of the defendant is not that of trespassers. On Issue No. 4 it was found that Ram Piari and Tara Mani were not absolute owners to the property in dispute. They have acquired "restricted estate" and this "restricted estate" did not get enlarged on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. They could only enjoy the income of the property in dispute so long as they are alive and after their death, the property shall revert to the collaterals of the deceased Basant Lal. Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani had no power to alienate the property in dispute as their "restricted estate" never got enlarged under S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act into absolute estate. 7. Plaintiff went in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate judge First Class, Ludhiana dated 26-9-1977, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 14-2-1979. In consequence, he decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession of the house in dispute against the defendants. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1979 Smt. Tara Mani defendant has come up in this regular second appeal to this Court. 8. For understanding the controversy involved between the parties, it is necessary to reiterate the following pedigree table : 9. Lahori Mal whose estate is involved in the suit died on 6-12-1941. On 28-4-1943. Miss Ram Piari daughter of Lahori Mal and Smt. Tara Mani daughter of Lahori Mal wife of Sh. 8. For understanding the controversy involved between the parties, it is necessary to reiterate the following pedigree table : 9. Lahori Mal whose estate is involved in the suit died on 6-12-1941. On 28-4-1943. Miss Ram Piari daughter of Lahori Mal and Smt. Tara Mani daughter of Lahori Mal wife of Sh. Ram Parkash Sharma filed suit for declaration, namely Civil Suit No. 199 of 1943, to the effect that Miss Ram Piari is in possession as owner of the properties among others residential house, situated in Maliganj Ludhiana, bounded East Basant Ram, West House of Blaki Ram, North Kucha-am Maligunj, South Sayyed Nand Shah, as legal heir of Lala Lahori Mal, her father and Smt. Tara Mani is in joint possession with her and Basant Lal and Rajinder Lal (minor) son of Shri Basant Lal, have no right in their presence and in the presence of the male issue of Smt. Tara Mani and also for issue of a perpetual injunction against them (Shri Basant Lal and Rajinder Lal minor son of Basant Lal) to the effect, that they shall not interfere in any way with their possession of the properties detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint itemed as A to G. Exhibit D-1 is the certified copy of the plaint of that suit. Exhibit D-2 is the certified copy of the written statement filed to the plaint of that suit. It was alleged in Exhibit D-1 that they are the daughters of late Lala Lahori Mal. Miss Ram Piari is his unmarried daughter while Smt. Tara Mani is his married daughter. Lal Lahori Mal was altogether separate from Lal Basant Lal during his life time and according to the Sastric Law (Mitakshra Law) they are the only heirs of their father Lala Lahori Mal. In their presence, defendants have no right to claim that they are the heirs of Lahori Mal. In their presence they have no right to lay any claim to the property of Lahori Mal which was his self-acquired property. In nutshell, Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani laid claim to the properties of Lahori Mal on the basis of heirship vis-a-vis Lala Basant Lal and Rajinder Lal son of Basant Lal. In the written statement filed by Basant Lal, the claim of Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani was disputed. It was denied that they are his heirs. In the written statement filed by Basant Lal, the claim of Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani was disputed. It was denied that they are his heirs. In fact, he is his heir being his brother. He laid claim to the properties of Lahori Mal on account of Will dated 23-11-1941, whereby he had bequeathed his entire property to him while in sound disposing mind. That suit ended into compromise in view of the statement of Lala Basant Lal which was agreed to by Miss Ram Piari, Basant Lal made the following statement before Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana on 9-11-1913 : I agree to give full proprietary rights in the shops described in the plans. A. B. and C situated in Meena Bazar, Town Hall, Road (Puj-Ki-Sarai) and Kesar Gang. Plaintiffs will have full rights over these shops and I and my sons will have nothing to do with them. The house described in the plan D is also given to the plaintiffs for their residence and I will have no right to interfere in any way with their right of residence till the lifetime of Bibi Ram Piari after whose death the house will revert to me. I also agree to give Rs. 5000.00 to the plaintiffs by way of their share in immovable property and in ornaments etc. belonging to the deceased. They will have no further claim on any ornaments etc. except that their belongings lying in the small house, plan D. In which they are living all belongs to them and I and my sons will have no concern with them. Plaintiffs will have a right to visit the garden in the Civil Lines and we will not interfere in their visit while they will have a right to staying in the Kothi of Manali if they ever happen to visit that place but they will have no right to a permanent residence there. Plaintiffs will have no claim on the rest of the properties in any manner. Costs of the suit to be borne by the parties. Plaintiffs will have no claim on the rest of the properties in any manner. Costs of the suit to be borne by the parties. The four shops including the two residential houses attached to them mentioned in the plans B, E situated opposite Town Hall will be dealt with according to the Will of Lala Lahori Mal deceased, i.e. the rent of this property will be enjoyed by the plaintiffs till their lifetime and then these four shops will be sold and the income will be applied to as charitable purpose in the name of R.S. Ralla Ram as given in the Will and these shops will be sold after the death of the plaintiffs and not before. The above statement of nine only relates to the property which is in dispute in this case and it will have no effect on any other property e.g. the lands, mutation of which have already been entered in their names, I will pay the amount of Rs. 5000.00 within six months from today. 10. Miss Ram Piari made the following statement on 9-11-1943 : "I have heard the above statement of Lala Basant Lal and I agree to all the terms and conditions given in his statement. Decree maybe passed according to this statement. 11. In view of these statements, the following decree was passed by Shri Maharaj Kishore, Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana on 9/11/1943 : "It is ordered that a decree in plaintiffs favour against the defendants and the same is hereby passed in accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated in the statement of Lala Basant Lal defendant No. 1 which are as below : Plaintiffs will have full rights over the shops described" in the plans A, B and C situated in Meena Bazar, Town Hall Road (Puj Ki Sarai) and Kesar Gunj, Defendant No. 1 and his sons will have nothing to do with them. The house described in the plan D is also given to the plaintiffs for their residence and defendant No. 1 will have no right to interfere in any way with their right of residence till the lifetime of Bibi Ram Piari and after whose death the house will revert to defendant No. 1. He (Basant Lal) also agreed to give Rs. 5000.00 to the plaintiffs by way of their share in moveable property and in ornaments etc. belonging to the deceased. He (Basant Lal) also agreed to give Rs. 5000.00 to the plaintiffs by way of their share in moveable property and in ornaments etc. belonging to the deceased. They will have no further claim on any ornaments etc. except that their belongings lying in the small house Plan D in which they are living all belong to them and he (defendant No. 1) and his sons will have no concern with them. Plaintiffs will have a right to visit the garden in the Civil Lines and defendant No. 1 and his sons will not interfere in their visit while they will have a right of staying in the Kothi of Manali if they ever happen to visit that place but they will have no right to permanent residence there. Plaintiffs will have no claim on the rest of the properties in any manner. The four shops including the two residential houses attached to them mentioned in the plan E situated opposite to the Town Hall will be dealt with according to the Will of Sh. Lahori Mal deceased, i.e. the rent of this property will be enjoyed by the plaintiffs till their lifetime and then these four shops will be sold and the income will be applied to a charitable purpose in the name of R. S. Ralia Ram as given in the Will and these shops will be sold after the death of the plaintiffs and not before. The above statement of defendant No. 1 only relates to the property which is in dispute in this case and it will have no effect on any other property for instance the lands mutation of which have already been entered in their name. Defendant No. 1 will pay the amount of Rs. 5000.00 within six months from the date of decree. Costs of the suit are to be borne by the parties. 12. We are here not concerned with the other properties belonging to Lala Ralla Ram. We are here concerned only with the house in dispute situated in Mali Ganj, Ludhiana shown as Item No. A in the plan D attached to that plaint of the year 1943. 13. Costs of the suit are to be borne by the parties. 12. We are here not concerned with the other properties belonging to Lala Ralla Ram. We are here concerned only with the house in dispute situated in Mali Ganj, Ludhiana shown as Item No. A in the plan D attached to that plaint of the year 1943. 13. As regards house in dispute, the decree dated 9-11-1943 states that this house is given to the plaintiffs i.e. Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani for their residence and he (Basant Lal) will have no right to interfere in any way with their right of residence in the lifetime of Miss Ram Piari. After her death the house will revert to him (Basant Lal), Prior to these lines in the statement of Basant Lal the following lines appear I agree to give full proprietary rights in the shops described in the plans A, B and C situated in Meena Bazar Town Hall Road (Puj Ki Sarai) and Kasar Ganj. In the statement of Basant Lal this line also appears I will give Rs. 5000.00 to the plaintiffs by way of their share in immovable property and in ornaments etc. Belonging to the deceased (late Lahori Mal) belongings lying in the house shown in plan D itemed A in which they (Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani) are living, all belongs to them and he (Basant Lal) and his sons (Basant Lals sons) will have no concern with them. 14. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant (Smt. Tara Mani) that their family Lahori Mal died on 6-12-1941. Under the Hindu Law then prevailing, she and her sister Miss Ram Piari were his legal heirs. They were entitled to a limited interest in the entire estate left by their father. By virtue of the compromise that took place on 9-11-1943 before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 199 of 1943, Ram Piari who died on 2/01/1976, gave up the entire property left by their father, except the house in dispute. There are four shops which are not the subject-matter of this litigation. By virtue of the compromise that took place on 9-11-1943 before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 199 of 1943, Ram Piari who died on 2/01/1976, gave up the entire property left by their father, except the house in dispute. There are four shops which are not the subject-matter of this litigation. It was submitted that rights in her and Miss Ram Piari were not created for the first time by virtue of compromise dated 9-11-1943 but they had right in that house being the daughters of late Lahori Mal who had no son, or sons son, but brother Basant Lal and his sons. It was submitted that the limited interest which they inherited on the death or their father and which was recognised in the decree dated 9-11-1993 by Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, became enlarged into absolute ownership with the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Hindu Succession Act came into force w.e.f. 17-6-1956). 15. Now the question arises whether daughters were heirs to their father who was sonless and wifeless prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act or the Sastric Law that was governing the law of inheritance among Hindu?" The Mitakshara recognises two modes of devolution of property, namely, survivorship and succession. The rule of survivorship applies to joint family property; the rules of succession apply to property held in absolute severalty by the last owner. It may be mentioned here that Mitakshara system is prevailing in all other parts of India, while Dayabhaga system is prevailing in Bengal. In the Dayabhaga system only one mode of devolution was recognised. It did not recognize the rule of survivorship even in the cases of joint family property. The reason is that while every member of a Mitakshara joint family has only an undivided interest in the joint property, a member of a Dayabhaga joint family holds his share in quasi-severalty, so that it passes on his death to his heirs as if he was absolutely seized thereof, and not to the surviving coparceners as under the Mitakshara law. Para No. 34 of General Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, Sixteenth Edition, Chapter IV deals with devolution of property according to the Mitakshara Law. Para No. 34 of General Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, Sixteenth Edition, Chapter IV deals with devolution of property according to the Mitakshara Law. It reads as follows : "In determining the mode in which the property of a Hindu male governed by the Mitakshara Law devolves on his death, the following propositions are to be noted :- 1. Where the deceased was, at the time of his death, a member of a joint and undivided family, technically called coparcenary, his undivided interest in the coparcenary property devolves on his coparceners by survivorship. 2. (i) Even if the deceased was joint at the time of his death, he might have left self-acquired or separate property. Such property goes to his heirs by succession accordance to the order given in 43 and not to his coparceners. (ii) If the deceased was at the time of his death the sole surviving member of a coparcenary property, the whole of his property, including the coparcenary property, will pass to his heirs by succession according to the order given in 43 (y). (iii) If the deceased was separate at the time of his death from his coparceners, the whole of his property, however acquired, will pass to his heirs by succession according to the order given in 43(z). (3) If the deceased was re-united at the time of his death, his property will pass to his heirs by succession according to the rule laid down in 60 below : 16. Paragraph 43, Chapter IV of the Principles of Hindu Law deals with order of succession among supindas in the following terms : 1.3. Son, grandson (sons son) and great grandson (sons sons son) and (after 14/04/1937) widow, predeceased sons widow, and predeceased sons predeceased sons widow. A son, a grandson whose father is dead, and a great-grandson whose father and grandfather are both dead, succeed simultaneously as a single heir to the separate or self-acquired property of the deceased with rights of survivorship. After 14/04/1937, widow takes the same share as a son. The widow of a predeceased son inherits in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son; and in like manner as a sons son, if there is surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son. After 14/04/1937, widow takes the same share as a son. The widow of a predeceased son inherits in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son; and in like manner as a sons son, if there is surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son. The same rule applies mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. 4-A Predeceased sons widow, widow of predeceased son of predeceased son 5, Daughter.- Priority among daughters-Daughters do not inherit until all the widows are dead. As between daughters, the inheritance goes, first, to the unmarried daughters, next to daughters who are married and "unprovided for" that is indigent, and lastly, to daughters who are married and are "enriched" that is, possessed of means. ...................................... (iii) Limited estate :- The daughter takes a limited interest in the estate of her father corresponding to the widows estate. On her death, the estate passes not to her heirs but to the next heirs of her father. The next heirs of the father are called reversioners. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , subject to certain qualifications, confers full heritable capacity on a female heir in respect of all property acquired by her whether before or after the commencement of that enactment. 17 It was submitted that in the absence of son, grandson and great-grandson and widow, predeceased sons widow and predeceased sons predeceased sons widow daughter was an heir to her father so far as separate or self-acquired property was concerned. Among daughters, the inheritance goes to unmarried daughter, next, to daughters who are married and "unprovided for" that is indigent and lastly to daughters who are married and are "enriched" that is, possessed of means. 18. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani might have been heirs to their father Lala Lahori Mal, but he did not constitute them as his heirs. He executed Will dated 23-11-1941, by virtue of which he did not confer any right on them so far as his property was concerned. All that he conferred on them was the right to enjoy the house in dispute till they are alive and after that it shall revert to his collaterals. It was submitted that by virtue of Will Exhibit PW. All that he conferred on them was the right to enjoy the house in dispute till they are alive and after that it shall revert to his collaterals. It was submitted that by virtue of Will Exhibit PW. 7/3 which is a holograph, Ralla Ram gave only limited right to his daughters Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani in the house in dispute who were to enjoy the income thereof till they are alive and after their death, the house in dispute was to revert to his collaterals. 19. It was submitted that this Will was more than 30 years old and as such, presumption will arise as to its due execution. It was submitted that even otherwise also, no doubt can be entertained with regard to the execution of this Will as after the death of Lahori Mal which took place on 6-12-1941 this Will was produced before Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana on 16/01/1942 by Shri Basant Lal. It was submitted that this Will was not required to have been proved in accordance with the provisions of S. 63(6) of the Indian Succession Act read with S. 68 of the Evidence Act because in the year 1979, this Will was more than 30 years old. As it was coming from proper custody, presumption had to be raised with regard to its due execution. Miss Ram Piari made an application dated 3-9-1976 calling upon the production of this Will by Narinder Kumar. As held in Madan Lal V/s. Kundan Lal 1986 (2) 90 Pun LR 428 that if a document is 30 years old, it has to be presumed that it was executed or attested by person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested. In Madan Lals case (supra), the suit was filed on 23/10/1972 for possession by way of redemption of original mortgage deed dated 24/10/1942. It was held that mortgage deed being 30 years old, the Courts below rightly presumed that the signatures and every part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person was in that persons handwriting and that in the case of a document executed or attested, it had been duly executed or attested. In Probhat Chandra Kanrar V/s. Sm. In Probhat Chandra Kanrar V/s. Sm. Rani Bala Kanrar, AIR 1989 Calcutta 202, it was held that notwithstanding S. 68 of the Evidence Act, the Court in a proper case can make a presumption under S. 90 of the Evidence Act. The two provisions of Ss. 68 and 90 of the Evidence Act do not militate against each other. Therefore, the right of the Court to presume under S. 90 is not controlled or curtailed by S. 68 of the Evidence Act. Whether or not the presumption should be made, will depend upon the facts of each particular case. For example, to decide the genuineness of old documents, the important consideration should be whether they were acted upon or not or whether they were supported by possession or not and too much importance could not be attached to resemblance of signatures or to the opinion of experts about them. In Munnalal V/s. Mst. Kashibai, AIR 1947 PC 15 it was held that a party setting up a Will is required to prove that the testator was of sound disposing mind when he made his Will but in the absence of any evidence as to the State of the testators mind, proof that he had executed a Will rational in character in the presence of witnesses must lead to a presumption that he was of sound mind, and understood what he was about. This presumption can be justified under the express provisions of S. 90 since a Will cannot be said to be duly executed by a person who was not competent to execute it; and the presumption can be fortified under the more general provisions of S. 114, since it is likely that a man who performs a solemn and rational act in the presence of witnesses is sane and understands what he is about. 20. It is true that in this case we cannot insist upon the proof of Will dated 23-11-1941 which purports to have been executed by Shri Lahori Mal as on the day when the suit was instituted this Will was more than 30 years old. Further, it was a holograph i.e. in the own hand of the testator himself. To cap it, soon after his death, it was produced before the Sub-Registrar by his brother Basant Lal on 16-1-1912 for registration. The Sub-Registrar attested it. Further, it was a holograph i.e. in the own hand of the testator himself. To cap it, soon after his death, it was produced before the Sub-Registrar by his brother Basant Lal on 16-1-1912 for registration. The Sub-Registrar attested it. In the year 1943 Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani filed suit No. 199 dated 28-4-1943 against Lala Basant Lal and his minor son Rajinder Lal for declaration whereby they claimed their ownership in properties left by their father Shri Lahori Mal, being his heirs. That suit was sought to be contested by Basant Lal. He set up Will dated 23-11-1941 executed by his brother. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani had pre-existing right in the property of their father as being his heirs in the absence of his son, pre-deceased son, widow etc. and not that it was for the first time that they got this property either on account of Will dated 23-11-1941 or on account of compromise decree dated 9-11-1943. It was submitted that compromise decree only recognized their right to this property. Compromise decree only declared them as having full rights over certain properties and also that they will have right to reside in the house in dispute till the lifetime of Miss Ram Piari. They were given this right because they were his daughters, more particularly to Ram Piari who was his unmarried daughter and who remained unmarried throughout. It was submitted that had they been strangers and given some right to the property for the first time either through Will or through compromise, there would have been no enlargement of their rights after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Since they had pre-existing right in this property being the heirs of their father who was without any son, wife etc., there would be enlargement of their limited right into absolute ownership which is the intendment of S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Since they had pre-existing right in this property being the heirs of their father who was without any son, wife etc., there would be enlargement of their limited right into absolute ownership which is the intendment of S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . In support of this submission, he drew my attention to C. Masilamani Mudaliar V/s. The Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996) 3 JT (SC) 98 wherein it was held that where two widows acquired lifetime interest in properties through the Will of S, who was the husband of one of them whether the widow of S becomes the absolute owner of the property by operation of S. 14(1), held that the right acquired under the Will is in recognition of the pre-existing right to maintenance known under the Sastric Law and was transformed into an absolute right under S. 14(1) and S. 14(1) wiped out the restrictive estate given under the Sastric Law and the widow of S as absolute owner of the property. In (supra) there was one Somasundaram Pillai who had executed a Will Ex. A-3 on 16-7-1950 bequeathing the suit properties to his wife and his cousins widow Janakathache mentioning thereunder as follows : "Whereas I have no male or female issues and my wife (1) Sellathachi and (2) Janaka Thath achi, wife of my senior paternal uncles son Thabasuya Pillai are living with me and in my family and other than the other two persons, there is none else in my family. Amongst the aforesaid persons, the aforesaid Janaka Thachi have got only maintenance relationship and none else in my family have any right in the share or have maintenance relationship. I am duly bound to provide maintenance for the aforesaid two persons and I have no other duty to be performed. Therefore, after my lifetime, the undermentioned A Schedule property valued at Rs. 2000.00 shall be got by the aforesaid two persons and shall be enjoyed in equal shares without any right to alienate the same and perform the charities as per their wish and after the lifetime of both the aforesaid persons. Govindasrasan Pillai, son of Peria Pillai, of the aforesaid Eduvankudi Village shall be the trustee of a schedule property and with the income derived from the undermentioned land shall perform the Pooja to the idol at Swamimalai Sri Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam. Govindasrasan Pillai, son of Peria Pillai, of the aforesaid Eduvankudi Village shall be the trustee of a schedule property and with the income derived from the undermentioned land shall perform the Pooja to the idol at Swamimalai Sri Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam. Somasundaram Pillai died in September 1950. The legatees Sellathachi and another had come into possession of the properties. Janaka Thathachi died in the year 1960. In 1970, Sellathachi had appointed a power of attorney-holder who had alienated the suit properties and the appellants had purchased them under registered sale deed. The suit was filed for declaration that the legatees having succeeded to limited estate under the Will, the alienations made by Sellathachi were illegal. The trial Court decreed the suit. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and in LPA No. 161 of 1988 dated 2-7-1992, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the decree of the single Judge holding that the legatees had succeeded to "restricted estate" under sub-section (2) of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and, therefore, their rights have not blossomed into "absolute estate". Thus, the appeal by special leave. The appeal through special leave by the alienees of Sellathachi was allowed. Judgment of the Division Bench was set aside and that of the single Judge was upheld. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. In (supra) the case reported as Gumpha V/s. Jaibal, (1994) 1 JT (SC) 535 was overruled where the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that property acquired under Will does not fall under S. 14(1). In that case, the Will was executed in the year 1941 and the testator died in 1958 after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, it was held that she acquired the right to maintenance in the will as a restricted estate and by operation of S. 30 of the Act read with S. 14(2), she acquired a limited estate" . 21 In Badri Prasad V/s. Srimati Kanso Devi (1969) 2 SCC 586 the question of the construction of sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of S. 14 had come up before a three-Judge Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The facts therein were that the respondent got certain properties under an award as a widows estate. 21 In Badri Prasad V/s. Srimati Kanso Devi (1969) 2 SCC 586 the question of the construction of sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of S. 14 had come up before a three-Judge Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The facts therein were that the respondent got certain properties under an award as a widows estate. Suit was filed by the appellant to restrain respondent from committing acts of waste or alienating the properties on the grounds that she was only limited owner of the property. The respondent contended that under S. 14(1) she became full owner of the property which was found favour with the Courts below. In interpreting S. 14(1) and (2) Hon ble Supreme Court held that the words acquired and possessed have been used in their widest connotation. Possession must be constructive or actual or in any form recognised by law. In the language of explanation the word "acquired" must also be given the widest possible meaning. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 14 would come into operation only if acquisition in any of the manners indicated therein does not come under S. 14(1) and was made for the first time, without there being any pre-existing right in the Hindu female who is in possession of the property. It was held that since she was in possession of the property as a widows estate, her limited right was enlarged into an absolute right under Sec. 14(1). In paragraph 17 of (1996) 3 JT (SC) 98 the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed "Effective measures should be undertaken to ensure that women have an active role in the development process. Appropriate economic and social reforms should be carried out with a view to eradicate all social injustice. In paragraph 18 the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed "all forms of discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights. 22. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani were given this right in the Will of their father as they were his daughters. Similarly, this right was conceded to them by the compromise decree of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana dated 9-11-1943 because of their being daughters of Shri Lahori Mal. It was submitted that no new right was created in the Will or the compromise decree. Similarly, this right was conceded to them by the compromise decree of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana dated 9-11-1943 because of their being daughters of Shri Lahori Mal. It was submitted that no new right was created in the Will or the compromise decree. Only the right inhering in them by virtue of their being the daughters of Lahori Mal who was sonless and wifeless was recognized. Restrictions placed on them on the exercise of this right by way of compromise became redundant with the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows : "Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.- (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. Explanation.- In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Strihaa immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument or under a decree of order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, Will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a "restricted estate" in such property." 23. Under the Hindu Law in operation prior to the coming into force of this Act, a womans ownership of property was hedged in by certain delimitations on her right of disposal by acts inter vivos and also on her testamentary power in respect of that property and there was great diversity of doctrine on the subject. The ancient texts purported to enumerate heads of Stridhan but without comprehensive Signification. Some of the expressions used in those texts were merely supplementory and there was no logical classification. The ancient texts purported to enumerate heads of Stridhan but without comprehensive Signification. Some of the expressions used in those texts were merely supplementory and there was no logical classification. Divergent authorities only added to the difficulties surrounding the meaning of a term to which it was sought to give a technical significance and the result was that a term not difficult of comprehension in its etymological sense came to be understood in a narrower and arbitrarily limited connotation. Absolute power of alienation was not regarded, in case of a female owner, as a necessary concomitant of the right to hold and enjoy property and it was only in case of property acquired by her from particular sources that she had full dominion over it. The restrictions imposed by Hindu law on the proprietary rights of a woman depended on her status as a maiden, as a married woman and as a widow, they also depended on the source and nature of the property. The order of succession to stridhan was different from that in case of property of a male owner and it varied under the different schools. 24. The rule laid down in sub-section (1) has very wide and extensive application and has to be read in a comprehensive manner. The Act overrides inter alia the old law on the subject of Stridhan in respect of all property possessed by a female, whether acquired by her before or after the commencement of the Act and this Section declares that all such property shall be held by her as full owner. The act confers full heritable capacity on the female heir and this Section dispenses with the traditional limitations on the powers of a female Hindu to hold and transmit property. The effect of the rule laid down in this action is to abrogate the stringent provisions against the proprietary rights of a female which are often regarded as evidence of her perpetual tutelage and to recognise her status as independent and absolute owner of property. The effect of the rule laid down in this action is to abrogate the stringent provisions against the proprietary rights of a female which are often regarded as evidence of her perpetual tutelage and to recognise her status as independent and absolute owner of property. The object of this Section is to extinguish the estate called limited estate or widows estate in Hindu law and to make a Hindu woman, who under the old law would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property with all powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige or title. 25. It would bear repetition that in this case Miss Ram Piari and Smt. Tara Mani had pre-existing right in the property of their father late Lahori Mal being his daughters when he had no son, wife etc. alive who could inherit him. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, Miss Ram Piari became absolute owner of this property. After the death of Miss Ram Piari this property devolved upon Smt. Tara Mani who was her sister as Ram Piari had no brother. As between Tara Mani and her cousin, Smt. Tara Mani would have preference in the matter of succeeding to miss Ram Piari. 26. Decision of this appeal hinges mainly on the interpretation of S. 14(1) and S. 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. So far as this case is concerned, it is governed by S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The House in dispute was acquired by Miss Ram Piari and her sister Smt. Tara Mani in lieu of Miss Ram Piaris right to residence which right became enlarged into full ownership after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. In the case of unmarried daughter, right to residence will include the right to maintenance also because unmarried daughter is entitled to be maintained by her father if she has no means of her own, to maintain her. It is the duty of the father to make provision for the residence and maintenance of her unmarried daughter after his death. In the case of unmarried daughter, right to residence will include the right to maintenance also because unmarried daughter is entitled to be maintained by her father if she has no means of her own, to maintain her. It is the duty of the father to make provision for the residence and maintenance of her unmarried daughter after his death. It was in lieu of maintenance and residence that this house was given to Miss Ram, Piari by the Will of her father and this right was recognized by way of compromise dated 9-11-1943. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Smt. Ram Piari was only a licensee. She was permitted only to reside in the property. As soon as she died the licence/permission came to an end. It was submitted that at no stage, limited rights were created in favour of Miss Ram Piari and Tara Mani. Only licence was created in them and the licence came to an end when Miss Ram Piari died. It was submitted that as such there was no question of enlargement of the rights. It was submitted that Sec. 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act wont come into play. In this case, it was submitted that there is clear provision in the Will that these girls will not succeed to it but collaterals will succeed to it and similarly on the death of Lahori Lal, Basant Lal became owner of the property. In my opinion, this argument is misconceived as Miss Ram Piari was not on the mercy of her father. In favour of an unmarried daughter, right of maintenance and right of residence was created by the Sastric Law itself. Where should an unmarried daughter go if her father, who has the means does not provide for her residence and maintenance after him. 27. In view of what has been said above, this appeal is allowed. In consequence, the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. In view of the fact that substantial question of law is involved, the decision of which was not free from difficulty, there will be no order as to costs and parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.