Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1161 (PNJ)

Guru Datt (Dead) through LRs. v. Lekh Raj

2003-08-19

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - The short question raised in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) by the plaintiff-appellants is as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity, the Act) would apply to the facts of the instant case. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that Ram Kali predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- appellants had become absolute owner of the suit property which was recognised by the judgment Ex.OY. The findings recorded in the judgment Ex.OY were not challenged and had attained finality. the plaintiff-appellants have been held to be bound by the same. Therefore, the view taken by the Courts below is that Section 14(1) of the Act would govern the case by considering Ram Kali to be the absolute owner. 2. Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant appeal may first be noticed. To understand the controversy between the parties, the following pedigree table would be helpful :- See table below From the pedigree table it has become evident that the parties are inter- related. Assa son of Parsa owned some land in two village Bhabnal and Puro Chak. He was succeeded by his son Gokal and his widow Mst. Gangi got a limited estate. She made some transfer of the properties which were subject matter of challenge of a suit filed by Ralla Ram reversioner who is the ancestor of the plaintiff-appellants and plaintiff-respondents. The suit was decreed and the decree was maintained upto the High Court vide judgment dated 3.7.1913. According to the judgment Ralla Ram a reversioner was held entitled to succeed to the estate of Gokal after the death of Mst. Gangi and any alienation made by her was held to be ineffective after her death. After the decree Mst. Gangi created occupancy rights of land measuring 162 kanals in favour of her daughter Ram Kali. After the death of Mst. Gangi mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ralla Ram on 20.3.1943. Ralla Ram also created occupancy rights in 1943 in respect of 44 kanals of land in favour of Ram Kali in village Bhabnal and mutation was sanctioned to that effect. In total Ram Kali became occupancy tenant of 205 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land. Gangi mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ralla Ram on 20.3.1943. Ralla Ram also created occupancy rights in 1943 in respect of 44 kanals of land in favour of Ram Kali in village Bhabnal and mutation was sanctioned to that effect. In total Ram Kali became occupancy tenant of 205 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land. Ram Kali filed a civil suit on 21.1.1946 against Ralla Ram claiming possession of 1716 kanals and 19-1/2 marlas of land and the suit was compromised conceding 1/3rd share in the land in dispute to Ram Kali as a limited owner while rest of the land went to Ralla Ram. A decree dated 14.4.1947 in terms of the compromise was passed. It is in respect of this right conferred on Ram Kali, the question with regard to applicability of Section 14(1) and S. (2) of the Act has to be examined. 3. To complete the narration of facts, it is pertinent to mention that in Village Bhabnal consolidation took place C. 1968-69. About 311 kanals 7 marlas of land was shown in the name of Ram Kali, whereas she was entitled to only 245 kanals of land. The remaining 64 kanals 9 marlas of land, the detail of which has been mentioned in the plaint was entered in the name of defendant- respondents 1 to 4. Ram Kali died on 13.12.1975 and defendant-respondents 1 to 7 set up a will dated 9.12.1974 Ex.DW2/B. On the basis of the will mutation of the land mentioned in head-note (A) and (B) of the plaint was sanctioned in their favour. The mutation has been challenged by the plaintiff-appellants and plaintiff-respondents on the ground that under the compromise on the basis of which decree dated 14.4.1947 was passed, Ram Kali was only a limited owner without any right to alienate the property by will. Therefore, the will which was the basis of the mutation has been challenged being illegal. A copy of the compromise deed dated 14.4.1947 has been placed on record as Ex.PW 4/A. It has also been alleged that the will is in respect of the land which exceeds 1/3rd share of Ram Kali. The very execution of the will by Ram Kali has been disputed alleging that she was not in sound disposing mind and the will is the result of a conspiracy between defendant-respondents 1 to 7, the scribe and the registering authority. The very execution of the will by Ram Kali has been disputed alleging that she was not in sound disposing mind and the will is the result of a conspiracy between defendant-respondents 1 to 7, the scribe and the registering authority. The sons of the plaintiffs-appellants and the plaintiff-respondents have also propounded a will dated 23.3.1973 Ex. DW2/A and it is claimed that the will has not been challenged. Defendant-respondents 10 to 21 were alleged to be in cultivating possession of the land and were impleaded as mortgagees from defendant-respondent 1. The plaintiff-appellants claimed declaration that they have been owners in possession. 4. Defendants-respondents 1 to 7 took the plea that the plaintiff-appellants have not been in possession and suit for declaration, therefore, was to maintainable. It has been claimed that the instant suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. The relationship of the plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondents 12 to 14 with Ram Kali as asserted in the plaint has been disputed and the mutation in favour of Ralla Ram has been denied. In the alternative, it is claimed that they did not create any title in favour of Ralla Ram. The decree dated 14.4.1947 passed in the suit filed by Ram Kali has been admitted but the terms of the compromise have been disputed. It is claimed that she had been the absolute owner of the property by operation of Section 14(1) of the Act. In respect of the land mentioned in head-note (C) of the plaint, it has been alleged that defendant-respondents 2 to 4 were owners in possession on the basis of a valid gift deed executed by Ram Kali in their favour and plaintiff-appellants were estopped from challenging the same. It was further claimed that Ram Kali also executed a will dated 9.12.1974 in favour of defendant-respondents 1 to 7 and on that basis mutation has been rightly sanctioned in their favour. 5. Defendant-respondents 5 to 9 in their separate written statement claimed ownership on the basis of the will dated 22.3.1973 Ex.DW2/A. It is pertinent to mention that defendant-respondents 5 to 9 are the sons and brothers of the plaintiff-appellants. The rest of the claim made by the plaintiffs-appellants was admitted by them. 6. 5. Defendant-respondents 5 to 9 in their separate written statement claimed ownership on the basis of the will dated 22.3.1973 Ex.DW2/A. It is pertinent to mention that defendant-respondents 5 to 9 are the sons and brothers of the plaintiff-appellants. The rest of the claim made by the plaintiffs-appellants was admitted by them. 6. Defendant-respondents 12, 13, 19 and 20 in their written statement pleaded no concern with the alienation made by the plaintiff-appellants in their plaint to claim themselves to be the tenants under defendant-respondents 1 to 7. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form in view of the allegations of paras No. 1 & 2 of the written statement ? OPD. 2. Whether the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are related to Ram Kali deceased as per the pedigree table given in para No. 4 of the plaint ? OPC. 5. What is the effect of civil appeal No. 304 of 192 decreed on 3.7.1913 ? OPP. 6. Whether Ralla Ram deceased created occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 205 kanals 5 marlas if so to what effect ? OP 7. Whether there was a compromise in civil suit No. 29 decided on 14.7.1947. If so what (were) the terms of compromise and to what effect ? OPP. 8. Whether the suit land was carved in lieu of the land measuring 245 kanals of 5 marlas ? OPP. 9. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land ? OPP. 10. Whether Mst. Ram Kali executed a valid will on 9.12.1947 in favour of the defendant? OPD. 11. Whether Mst. Ram Kali executed a valid gift in respect of properties shown in head-note in favour of defendants No. 1 to 1-C ? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 12-A. Whether Ram Kali deceased executed a valid will dated 22.3.1973 in favour of defendants No. 5 to 9 ? OPD. 13. Relief. OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 12-A. Whether Ram Kali deceased executed a valid will dated 22.3.1973 in favour of defendants No. 5 to 9 ? OPD. 13. Relief. The learned Civil Judge recorded the findings that the plaintiff-appellants were in possession of 53 kanals 15 marlas of land out of which 53 kanals 3 marlas of land was in dispute and the suit for declaration was held maintainable only to that extent. The suit was further held to be barred by the principles of res judicata by holding that Ram Kali was absolute owner of the property. Compromise Ex.PW4/A was held to be proved and according to the same Ram Kali got 1/3rd share in the property of Gokal while 2/3rd share was conceded to Ralla Ram. The relationship of the plaintiff-appellants with Ram Kali was accepted. No conclusive findings were recorded on issue No. 5 because it appears under the decree dated 3.7.1913, the High Court has declared Mst. Gangi to be the limited owner and after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the status of Ram Kali underwent a change and she become absolute owner. The occupancy rights of Ram Kali in land measuring 245 kanals 5 marlas were upheld. The Civil Judge further held that the plaintiff-appellants could not prove that the land in dispute had been allowed in lieu of 245 kanalas 5 marlas of land as alleged. The registered will Ex. DW2/B in favour of defendant-respondents 1 to 4 was held to be proved but he gift deed in favour of defendant-respondents 1 to 3 was held not to be proved. On the principle of res judicata the plaintiff-appellants were held estopped from filing the suit. The will dated 22.3.1973 Ex.DW2/A in favour of defendant-respondents 5 to 9 was also held to be proved but it was found that the same had been superseded by the subsequent will Ex.DW2/B propounded by defendant-respondents 1 to 4. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. 8. The will dated 22.3.1973 Ex.DW2/A in favour of defendant-respondents 5 to 9 was also held to be proved but it was found that the same had been superseded by the subsequent will Ex.DW2/B propounded by defendant-respondents 1 to 4. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. 8. The plaintiff-appellants made an unsuccessful attempt in the appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code and the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissed the same holding that firstly the matter has already been agitated in an earlier suit between the parties and according to the judgment dated 3.4.1975 Ex.DY, it was held that Ram Kali had become absolute owner of the property in her hands. Even her right in the property has been accepted by the compromise dated 14.7.1947 Ex.PW4/A. The findings recorded in the judgment Ex.Dy having never been challenged in appeal had attained finality and the plaintiff-appellants have been held to be bound by the same. The view of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard reads as under :- "......There is nothing on the record to show that the right of Ram Kali was created under the compromise and the decree of 1947. On the other hand, her right seems to have been accepted by the compromise P.W. 4A. Moreover, the matter was agitated in a previous suit between the parties and according to the judgment Ex.DY it was held that Ram Kali had become the absolute owner of the property in her hands. This finding was never challenged in any appeal and, therefore, it had become final. The plaintiffs are bound by the same and I find it difficult for them to riggle [sic ?] wriggle out of the same. Consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that Ram Kali had become the absolute owner by operation of the Hindu Succession Act and the finding of the learned Sub Judge to that effect is correct. xx xx xx xx xx xx ----------Going through the record I find that the will in question has been proved by the statement of Ashok Kumar D.W. 2 and Pritam Chand D.W. 4. They have fully supported the version of the defendants and Shri B.L. Sikka who was posted as Joint Sub Registrar, Mukerian has appeared as D.W.6 to depose that he registered the will in question in V. Bhabnal on 10.12.74 on the application of the heirs of Ram Kali. They have fully supported the version of the defendants and Shri B.L. Sikka who was posted as Joint Sub Registrar, Mukerian has appeared as D.W.6 to depose that he registered the will in question in V. Bhabnal on 10.12.74 on the application of the heirs of Ram Kali. Ajit Singh who was the other attesting witness seems to have been won over by the plaintiffs and appeared as P.W. 6 to state that he was made to put the signature on the will by Naib Tehsildar but it is admitted by him that he asked the Sub Registrar about the nature of the document and he was told that it was a will executed by Ram Kali in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and at that time Ram Kali was present over there. In this manner he had admitted the attestation of the will in question which stands proved. The perusal of the will shows that it was executed out of love and affection for the defendants who had been rendering the services to her. The supplementary pedigree table reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment shows that defendants No. 1 to 4 are no strangers but are the sons of Vishwa Mittar who was the real brother of Ralla Ram. D.W.8/A is the copy of the application filed by Lekh Raj defendant No. 1 dated 30.11.74 against Kundan Lal plaintiff No. 2 that Ram Kali had been forcibly taken away against her wishes and was being detained and confined against her wish. Mark X is a copy of her statement dated 26.9.1971, relating to the sanctioning of the mutation No. 1015 of village Bhabnal in which she stated that Kundan Lal and his dependants were not behaving properly towards her and beat her. She expressed her intention to live with Lekh Raj defendant No. 1. This shows that Ram Kali and really intimate relations with defendants No. 1 to 4. Even otherwise the aforesaid history of litigation starting from 1908 shows that Ram Kali and her mother Mst. Gangi were continuously harassed by the plaintiffs who wanted to grab their property and in the face of this treatment it was un-natural to expect Ram Kali to have any sympathy for the plaintiffs. Even otherwise the aforesaid history of litigation starting from 1908 shows that Ram Kali and her mother Mst. Gangi were continuously harassed by the plaintiffs who wanted to grab their property and in the face of this treatment it was un-natural to expect Ram Kali to have any sympathy for the plaintiffs. Rather she was inimical towards them and with that state of mind she executed a gift deed in favour of defendants No. 1-A to 1-C which was the subject matter of the litigation at the hands of the plaintiffs and was finally disposed of by the judgment Ex.DY in favour of the defendants. It is true that Ram Kali seems to have executed a will copy D.W.2/A but the reason for the same is unknown. She rectified her mistake by superseding that will by the will D.W.2/B. In this view of the matter the will in favour of the defendants cannot be said to be invalid or not proved......." 9. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has argued that Ram Kali died on 13.12.1975 and the question with regard to her succession opened on that date. According to the learned counsel if the succession is to open on 13.12.1975, then the questions with regard to res judicata would not be attracted. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below based on the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1975 Ex.DY or compromise Ex.PW4/A are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has further submitted that the deed of settlement showing properties of the widow with a life interest would not attract application of Section 14(1) of the Act. It would be governed by Section 14(2) of the Act. The basis of this submission made by the learned counsel is that compromise deed Ex. PW4/A dated 14.7.1947 created only a life interest in her favour and did not ever recognise her as an absolute owner. In other words, no will or gift deed could have been executed by Ram Kali in respect of her estate because she has only life interest. In respect of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganaayakamma, (1997) 5 SCC 460. In other words, no will or gift deed could have been executed by Ram Kali in respect of her estate because she has only life interest. In respect of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao v. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganaayakamma, (1997) 5 SCC 460. He has also placed reliance on other judgments of the Supreme court in the case of Parwatabai v. Sonabai & Ors., JT 1996(7) SC 661 and Kothi Satyanarayana v. Galli Sithayya and others, (1986) 4 SCC 760 and argued that it cannot be claimed by defendant-respondents 1 to 4 that Ram Kali had necessarily pre-existing rights and she first time acquired those rights by virtue of Ex.PW4/A dated 14.7.1947. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act would apply and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act would not be applicable. He has also placed reliance on three judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Harpal Singh and others, AIR 1977 Punjab & Haryana 341 (F.B.); Jagir Singh v. Baboo Singh and others, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 202 and Chanan Singh and others v. Balwant Kaur and others, AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 203. 10. Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has pointed out that on 3.7.1913 a Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the suit filed by Debi Singh, Magat Ram, Ralla Ram and Ram Kali in Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1912. He has pointed out that the plaintiff-appellants are guilty of concealing facts inasmuch as correct pedigree table was not produced and an attempt was made to mislead the Court which has been adversely commented upon in paragraph 3 of the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court. He has then contended that Ex.P9 is the will executed by Ram Kali in the year 1961 and the second will was executed in the year 1974. According to the learned counsel, paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 3.4.1975 Ex.DY does not leave any doubt that Ram Kali has been declared as a full owner and as such was held entitled to dispose of the property in whatever manner she likes. It has further been held property was not to revert back to the collaterals once she has become the full owner. It has further been held property was not to revert back to the collaterals once she has become the full owner. The learned counsel has further pointed out that in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 3.4.1975 Ex. DY, it has been held that suit with regard to gift was barred by res judicata and the same question can now be re-opend by filing the instant suit which has been filed on 25.10.1966 because those findings have attained finality. On the basis of the aforementioned documents, particularly the judgment Ex. DY, the learned counsel has urged that once Ram Kali has become the absolute owner, the succession will not re-open on her death on 13.12.1975. The learned counsel has also made reference to Article 44 of the Mullas Hindu Law dealing with general principles of inheritance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1977 SC 1944 and Bai Vajia (dead) By L.Rs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai and others, AIR 1979 SC 993. He has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Ude Chand and others v. Mst. Rajo, 1966 PLR 382 (D.B.) and Ram Sarup and others v. Shrimati Toti and others, 1972 PLR 971. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the record minutely, I am of the considered view that this appeal is without any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed because the parties either themselves or through their predessors-in-interest have already litigated about their rights. The compromise dated 14.7.1947 Ex.PW4/A concedes that Ram Kali is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of the land. Thereafter, the judgment dated 3.4.1975 Ex.DY has also declared her as an absolute owner. There is hardly any room to record a finding contrary to the one recorded by both the Courts below that Ram Kali had become the absolute owner. Even otherwise, under Section 14(1) of the Act, Ram Kali would become absolute owner. It would be appropriate to notice Section 14 of the Act which reads as under :- "14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. Even otherwise, under Section 14(1) of the Act, Ram Kali would become absolute owner. It would be appropriate to notice Section 14 of the Act which reads as under :- "14. 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 stridhana 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 degree or 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 prescribed a restricted estate in such property." A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act shows that any property in possession of a female Hindu acquired before or after commandment of the Act has to be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner. The expression property is to include both moveable or immovable properties acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance, partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or a gift or in any other manner whatsoever as is clarified by the Explanation to Section 14(1) of the Act. Therefore, by virtue of a declaration given in her favour in judgment Ex.DY dated 3.4.1975, she has become absolute owner. Moreover there is compromise dated 1.4.1947 Ex.PW-4/8 conceding that she is owner to the extent of 1/3rd of that land. Therefore, Section 14(1) of the Act would apply. Section 14(1) of the Act has been subject matter of interpretation of various judgments of the Supreme Court. Moreover there is compromise dated 1.4.1947 Ex.PW-4/8 conceding that she is owner to the extent of 1/3rd of that land. Therefore, Section 14(1) of the Act would apply. Section 14(1) of the Act has been subject matter of interpretation of various judgments of the Supreme Court. It has been held in the case of Erramma v. Verrupanna, AIR 1966 SC 1379 that in order to attract the application of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, the Hindu female must be possessed of a limited ownership right. The view of their Lordships reads as under:- "The property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, in clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be noticed that the explanation to Section 14(1) sets out the various modes of acquisition of the property by a female Hindu and indicates that the section applies only to property to which the female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however restricted the nature of her interest may be. The words "as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner" as given in the last portion of sub-section (1) of Section 14 clearly suggest that the legislature intended that the limited ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. In other words, Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence of this provision, would have been limited owner of the property, will now become full owner of the same by the virtue of this section. The object of the 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 of title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of a female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere trespasser. .......... ----- ----- ----- ----- It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of a female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere trespasser. In other words, the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act cannot be attracted in the case of a Hindu female who is in possession of the property of the last male holder on the date of the commencement of the Act when she is only a trespasser without any right to property." (emphasis added) Similar view has been expressed in the case of Mangal Singh v. Rattno, AIR 1967 SC 1786. The following paragraph expresses the view of their Lordship :- "This case also, thus, clarifies that the expression "possessed by" is not intended to apply to a case of mere possession without title, and that the legislature intended this provision for cases where the Hindu female possesses the right of ownership of the property in question. Even mere physical possession of the property without the right of ownership (sic) section. This case also, thus, supports, our view that the expression "possessed by" was used in the sense of connoting state of ownership and, while the Hindu female possesses the rights of ownership she would become full owner if the other conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled. The section will, however, not apply at all to cases where the Hindu female may have parted with her rights so as to place herself in a position where she could, in no manner, exercise her rights of ownership in that property any longer." It has further been held that limited ownership in this very nature must be a bundle of rights constituting in their totality a full ownership. In the case of a widow she used to hold the property for her enjoyment as long as she lives but after her death, the property would ordinary revert back to reversioner. Following the judgment in Errammas case (supra) and Mangal Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court in Bai Vajia (dead) by L.Rs. In the case of a widow she used to hold the property for her enjoyment as long as she lives but after her death, the property would ordinary revert back to reversioner. Following the judgment in Errammas case (supra) and Mangal Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court in Bai Vajia (dead) by L.Rs. v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai and others, AIR 1979 SC 993 held as under :- "Limited ownership in the concerned Hindu female is thus a sine qua non for the applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act but then this condition was fully satisfied in the case of Tulasamma to whom the property was made over in lieu of maintenance with full rights of enjoyment thereof minus the power of alienation. These are precisely the incidents of limited ownership. In such a case the Hindu female represents the estate completely and the reversioners of her husband have only a spes successionis, i.e., a mere chance of succession, which is not a vested interest and a transfer of which is a nullity. The widow is competent to protect the property from all kinds of trespass and to sue and be sued for all purposes in relation thereto so long as she is alive. Ownership in the fullest sense is a sum-total of all the rights which may possibly flow from title to property, while limited ownership in its very nature must be a bundle of rights constituting in their totality not full ownership but something less. When a widow holds the property for her enjoyment as long as she lives, nobody is entitled to deprive her of it so to deal with the property in any manner to her detriment. The property is for the time being beneficially vested in her and she has the occupation, control and usufruct of it to the exclusion of all others. Such a relationship to property in our opinion falls squarely within the meaning of the expression "limited owner" as used in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. In this view of the matter the argument that the said sub-section did not apply to Tulasammas case (AIR 1977 SC 1944) (supra) for the reason that she did not fulfil the condition precedent of being a limited owner is repelled. In this view of the matter the argument that the said sub-section did not apply to Tulasammas case (AIR 1977 SC 1944) (supra) for the reason that she did not fulfil the condition precedent of being a limited owner is repelled. ------------- However we may emphasize one aspect of the matter which flows from the scrutiny of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and the Explanation appended thereto. For the applicability of sub-section (1) two conditions must co-exist, namely:- (1) the concerned female Hindu must be possessed of property, and (2) such property must be possessed by her as a limited owner. If these two conditions are fulfilled, the sub-section gives her the right to hold the property as a full owner irrespective of the fact whether she acquired it before or after the commencement of the Act. The Explanation declares that the property mentioned in sub-section (1) includes both movable and immovable property and then proceeds to enumerate the modes of acquisition of various kinds of property which the sub-section would embrace. Such modes of acquisition are: (a) by inheritance, (b) by devise, (c) at a partition, (d) in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, (e) by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage. (f) by her own skill or exertion, (g) by purchase, (h) by prescription, (i) in any other manner whatsoever, and (j) any such property held by her as "stridhana" immediately before the commencement of this Act." When the principles laid down in various judgements of the Supreme Court referred above are applied to the facts of the instant case, then it would become evident that defendant-respondent has a compromise decree in her favour dated 1.4.1947 Ex.PW-4/A, which confers on her a limited right till her life time. Thereafter, there is a judgment Ex.DY dated 3.4.1975 in her favour wherein the plaintiff-appellants have failed against the defendant-respondent Ram Kali, where the following findings have been recorded by referring the compromise PW-4/A as mark X. The observations of the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants read as under :- "It is an admitted fact between the parties that the property was the same which was given to Ramkali vide compromise mark X. Smt. Ram Kali brought a suit for the entire suit land belonging to her father in which the compromise was effected. She being daughter of Gokal had prefential Reversionary right and I subscribe to the view of the learned trial court that she being daughter of Gokal and being Referential right to succeed to his estate as against defendants it could not be held that she acquired the rights in land on the basis of compromise or the decree passed thereon by the court, rather she had pre-existing right to succeed to the estate of Gokal though at that time for her life time only state. The learned trial Court, therefore, correctly concluded that to the facts of the instant case section 14(i) of the Hindu Succession Act applied. On the passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, female owners who had limited interest in the property held by them became full owners. Both these alienations having been made by Smt. Ram Kali after 1956 when she was full owner of the property in dispute, the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the same. The will dated 16.6.64 Ex.D.1, stand proved by Ram Rakha deed writer, Waryam Singh DW-2 and Bhikhi Ram DW-3. The Gift deed Ex.D.2 stand proved by DW-4 Rajinder Singh dead-writer and Dina Nath DW5. As such the execution of both the documents also stands proved on record, and the plaintiffs have not been able to dislodge the evidence of the defendants to show that there was any incriminating circumstance which may render both the documents invalid. Both the issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the defendants, respondents by endorsing the findings of the learned trial court. xx xx xx xx xx xx As already decided while dealing issue No. 2 in para No. 10 supra, Smt. Ram Kali was full owner of the disputed land when she made the disputed will and gift deed in question. xx xx xx xx xx xx As already decided while dealing issue No. 2 in para No. 10 supra, Smt. Ram Kali was full owner of the disputed land when she made the disputed will and gift deed in question. As such the question of any reversionary rights of the plaintiffs as reversioners of Gokal (deceased) could not arise. Ram Kali defendant No. 6 being full owner was entitled to dispose of the property in whatsoever manner she liked and the property was not to revert back to the collaterals after she had once become the full owner. The issued is held accordingly for the defendants-respondents by endorsing the findings of the learned trial court. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs." In view of the above critical findings, no doubt is left that the rights of the parties are governed by Section 14(1) of the Act. Even otherwise, the principle of res judicata would apply because the matter stands adjudicated as is evident from the judgment Ex.DY dated 3.4.1975. 12. The argument of the learned counsel that on 13.12.1975 on the death of Ram Kali, the succession is thrown upon is absolutely misconceived because the rights of the parties stood already determined. A will, therefore, was rightly made by her in 1974 on the basis of which the mutation has also been sanctioned. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Raos case (supra) would not apply to the facts of the instant case because inter-parties there is already a decree Ex.DY dated 3.4.1975 adjudicating upon the rights of the parties declaring Ram Kali, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent as the absolute owner. Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parwatabais (supra) and Kothi Satyanarayanas case (supra) and other judgements relied upon by the learned counsel would not apply to the facts of the instant case because of the same reason. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the learned counsel that Section 14(2) of the Act governing the status of the property and reversioners were entitled to get their right determined by treating the interest of Ram Kali in the property as life interest. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed which costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Appeal dismissed.