( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS 1 to 3 in O. S 105/1985 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Yadgiri are the appellants in this second appeal, while the 4th plaintiff has been arrayed as the 5th respondent in this appeal. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS had filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties and for further injunction impleading one Smt. Gouramma wife of Channa Reddy who himself was the son of one Basanna propositus of a joint family as the 1st respondent and her daughters Parvatidevi and Akkamahadevi as defendants 2 and 3, one Tanga Khaja Hussain Bharpeth purchaser of some of the suit schedule properties from the said Gouramma, as 4th respondent in the suit ( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 1st defendant and one Irappa constituted a joint family being the sons of one Basanna, that the husband of the 1st defendant namely Sri Channa Reddy died in the year 1952 at Hyderabad, that the other son of Basanna namely Irappa died even 43 years back leaving behind his widow, that the said Muddamma did not have any male issues but had only two daughters The 1st defendant Gouramma also does not have any male issues but having only (two) daughters, defendants 2 and 3 The father of plaintiff 1 died in the year 1960 leaving behind him, plaintiff 1 and one Girijamma his sister. It was further pleaded that the said Basavarajappa had 3 sons and 2 daughters namely Channareddy, Shivshankarappa, Veerupakshappa, Umadevi and Padmabatti who were joined the 1st plaintiff as co- plaintiffs being plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 It was also pleaded that after the death of Channa Reddy, husband of 1st defendant Gouramma in the year 1952 and with the prior death of the other brother Irappa even 43 years back, father of the 1st plaintiff was the only surviving male heir in the family and the entire joint family properties devolved on him and he had continued the properties as such Plaintiffs pleaded that the 1st defendant Gouramma and Muddamma wife of Irappa had only a claim for maintenance as their husbands had died even prior to the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came in to force and that the 1st defendant Gouramma did not acquire any right, title or interest in respect of joint family properties even though her husband died in the year 1952 i. e. , subsequent to the Hindu Womens right to property Act, 1937 though had come into force it had no application in the area from where the parties originated in as much as it was a Part B State and this Act had no application to that area and as such even after the death of the husband of the 1st defendant she could only claim maintenance in the joint family properties The 1st plaintiff being the surviving male heir in the joint family and none of the other family heirs having inherited any property from out of the income of the joint family properties either under the Hindu Womens right to property Act, 1937 or under the Hindu Succession Act, the entire joint family properties were to be shared amongst the surviving male heirs who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 That notwithstanding this position the 1st defendant pursuant to certain declaration that had been given by the 1st plaintiff before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for finalising the extent of holding of the joint family properties after recording the statement of the 1st plaintiff and defendant 1, under the ill advice of her younger son in law and daughters had sought for mutating the lands indicated in the plaint D schedule properties in her favour as having been allotted to her share being the widow of Channa Reddy and inspite of the objections by the plaintiff the Special Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga having acceded to her request, that mutation entry was challenged However as the entries effected by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in the revenue records was illegal plaintiffs had filed O S 1/1982 before the Court of Munsiff, Shahapur and the said suit having been dismissed on certain technical grounds and against that an appeal was filed as R A 33/1983 which was also dismissed on 3 11 1984 and taking advantage of the said dismissal defendant 1 had dispossessed the plaintiffs forcibly from plaint D Schedule property and also sold certain items in that property in favour of the 4th defendant in-spite of the resistance and opposition on the part of the plaintiffs, it became necessary for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration that defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule D properties that the 4th defendant did not get any title or interest in respect of property which he has purchased from the let defendant, for recovery of possession of the properties and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment thereafter Plaintiffs have also sought for declaration to invalidate the sale deed dated 4 11 1985 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of one of the suit D Schedule properties. The geneology of the family is as under: family Pedigree basanna (died 60 years back) wife Shankramma (died 50 years back) irappa (died 43 years back) Shivashankarappa Channareddy died wife Muddamma ( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 had entered appearance through their counsel and filed written statement. The relationship was admitted. The question of facts were also not disputed. The geneology of the family is as under: family Pedigree basanna (died 60 years back) wife Shankramma (died 50 years back) irappa (died 43 years back) Shivashankarappa Channareddy died wife Muddamma ( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 had entered appearance through their counsel and filed written statement. The relationship was admitted. The question of facts were also not disputed. However defendants disputed that the 1st defendant and Smt Muddamma widow of Irappa did not have any share in the joint family properties particularly as the plaintiff pleaded that the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 having not been come into effect and the same having not been made applicable to the area where the property is situated by the year 1952 when the husband of the 1st defendant died she was not entitled to claim 1/3rd share of her husband in the joint family properties and indicated that the family properties other than the suit schedule lands she was entitled to only 1/3rd share in the joint family properties The claim of the plaintiffs that the suit D schedule property was acquired by the father of the 1st plaintiff was also not disputed It was stated that those properties had also been acquired by the income of the joint family properties It was also pleaded that the family had joint family business and all the properties were acquired from out of such income and neither the plaintiffs nor his father had separate income The declaration filed by the plaintiffs before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was admitted It was pleaded that the statements of 1st defendant and Smt Muddamma were recorded for the purpose of determining the extent of lands held by the joint family and the 1st defendant pleaded that while giving such a declaration plaintiffs had stated on oath that the 1st defendant is entitled to 1/3th share in the joint family properties and the proceedings having been finalised based on such declaration and submission of the parties and when plaintiffs themselves had thereafter with the consent of the parties had allotted lands in Sy Nos 781, 633/1, 134, 136 of Naikal village to the share of the 1st defendant who had come in to possession and enjoyment as absolute owner and also got her name entered in the revenue records mutated That the plaintiffs resorted to frivolous litigation to harass the 1st defendant Defendants also pleaded that the earlier suit O S No 1/82 and appeal R A No. 33/1983 had been rightly dismissed Defendants also pleaded that the plaintiffs had not been forcibly dispossessed from plaint D schedule property as alleged but they were allotted to them in the year 1985 but they are in the possession of defendant-1 from the year 1979-80 onwards on the basis of the agreement between the parties It was also pleaded that even according to the statement made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, defendant 1 is said to be the joint family member and no member of the joint, family can file a suit for declaration and possession against another member of the joint family and sought for dismissal of the suit It was in the alternative pleaded that even if the husband of the 1st defendant had died prior to 1952 and prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the 1st defendant was entitled to be maintained from out of the income of the joint family properties and she had a lien to that extent over the properties of the joint family and the parties by their conduct indicated in the declaration given before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur that the plaint D schedule properties are treated as separate properties of the 1st defendant having been given to her share which was indicated for the purpose of computing the total units that the joint family was entitled to hold on and after such declaration indicating the precise properties which the 1st defendant was entitled to in lieu of her maintenance which were indicated as plaint D schedule properties for which she had become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act and as such the 1st defendant was in lawful possession and enjoyment of this property and having been put in possession of the said property subsequent to the declaration and accordingly pleaded for the dismissal of the suit contending that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief sought for in the suit The 4th defendant filed a separate statement but supported the defence set up by the defendants 1 to-3. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances the trial Court had framed the following issues for its consideration 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the husband of defendant No 1 viz, Channareddy died prior to or after the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act making applicable to part B State including former Hyderabad Nizam State? 2) If after Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, whether the defendant No 1, as the widow of Channareddy derived 1/3rd share? 3) If so defendant No 1 becomes the absolute owner of her 1/3 share by virtue of Sec 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No 1 had only the right to be maintained from the joint family property (A Schedule)? 5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the properties, shown in B schedule are the self acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff No 1 and that the properties shown in C schedule are the self acquired properties of plaintiff No 1? 6) Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove that after enquiry in the matter of declaration under the provisions of KLR Act, there the agreement of settlement took place and that in such agreement of settlement, the properties shown in D schedule came to be allotted to the share of defendant No 1? 7) Whether the defendant No 4 proves that he is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration from defendant No 1 in respect of suit land sy No 633/1? 8) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the entry of the name of defendant No 1 in revenue records in respect of the suit D properties is illegal? 9) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dt:4 11 1985 executed in favour of defendant NO 4 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? 10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs of declarations of their title over suit D schedule properties and another of the sale deed d t: 4 11 1985 being null and void and not binding upon plaintiffs? 11) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of vacant possession of suit D schedule properties? 12) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of rectification of record of rights of suit D schedule properties? 13) What decree or order? 11) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of vacant possession of suit D schedule properties? 12) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of rectification of record of rights of suit D schedule properties? 13) What decree or order? ( 6 ) THE 6th issue is whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove that after enquiry in the matter of declaration under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act there the agreement of settlement took place and that in such agreement of settlement, the properties shown in D schedule came to be allotted to the share of defendant No 1 After considering all the issues and all other aspects of the matter the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for and accordingly dismissed the suit ( 7 ) IN support of their case while the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW 3 and other witnesses were examined and documents were marked as Ex P 1 to Ex P 13 in support of plaintiffs case In support of the defence set up by the 1st defendant she herself deposed in the box and two other witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st defendant Documents Ex D 1 to Ex D 8 were exhibited The trial Court after examining oral and documentary evidence on record and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties by the respective counsel held that the properties which had been given to the share of the 1st defendant as per the declaration before the Land Tribunal being subsequent to the year 1956 and which declaration was given as per the arrangement between the parties has become absolute properties of the 1st defendant in view of the provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act and as such there was no occasion to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed The aggrieved plaintiffs had appealed to the lower Appellate Court in RA 10/1994 The lower Appellate Court formulated the following points for its consideration 1) Whether Channa Reddy the husband of defendant No 1 died prior to the Hindu Womans Right to Property Act is made applicable to part B State including former Hyderabad State? 2) Whether the appellants/ plaintiffs proves that plaint B schedule properties are self acquired properties of father of plaintiff No 1 and plaint C schedule properties are the self acquired properties of plaintiff No 1? 3) Whether defendants 1 to 3 proves that plaint D schedule properties are allotted to the share of defendant No 1 by way of settlement? 4) Whether Respondent No 4 is a bona fide purchaser for the valuable consideration of the land S No 633/1? 5) Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No 1 in favour of defendant NO 4 Dt 4 11 1995 in respect of Sy No 633/1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs? 6) Whether the Judgment and decree passed in O S No 105/1985 Dt 21 4 1994 by Civil Judge Yadgiri are erroneous opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case? 7) What order or decree? ( 8 ) POINT No 3 namely whether defendants 1 to 3 proves that plaint D schedule properties are allotted to the share of defendant No 1 by way of settlement having been found in the affirmative the Appellate Court found no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the suit and accordingly dismissed the appeal also It is aggrieved by such concurrent adverse orders plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit have come up in second appeal while the 4th plaintiff is impleaded as 5th respondent in this appeal. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri K. Appa Rao, learned counsel for the appellants The main submission of Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel for the appellants is that both the courts below committed a grave error in law in holding that the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is attracted to their case for the purpose of enlarging the limited estate in favour of the family members of the joint family and for coming to the conclusion that the 1st defendant had become absolute owner of Plaint D schedule properties It is the submission of the learned counsel that the husband of the 1st defendant having died in the year 1952 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and the Hindu Womens Right to Properties Act, 1937 being not applicable to the area to which the parties belong, the 1st defendant did not acquire any right, title or interest in the joint family properties, that she did not have any limited estate which could have got enlarged on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force by application of Section 14, that the 1st defendant having not acquired any such aright as on the date when Section 14 perhaps applied all the joint family properties necessarily devolved on the surviving male members of the joint family after the death of her husband in the year 1952 and as such the courts below should not have dismissed the suit but should have decreed the suit as prayed for. ( 10 ) IT is also the submission of Sri Appa Rao, learned counsel for the appellants that the so-called declaration and applications made before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur indicating that the 1st defendant being a major member of the joint family and that her family is entitled to claim 10 units for the purpose of computing the total number of units held by the joint family would not make any difference to the right, title and entitlement of the parties which had become final in the year 1952 Learned counsel submits that the right of maintenance which the 1st defendant had during her life time and being member of the joint family which had not divided remains to be only a right of maintenance having not got enlarged into any full right particularly when she had not been put in possession of any part of joint family properties in lieu of her maintenance at the point of time when the Hindu Succession Act came into force Learned counsel accordingly submits that the 1st defendant had no definite share or specific right in the property or in respect of any item of the joint family properties and there was no occasion to claim for 1/3 share or lay a claim in respect of suit schedule properties purporting to be as per the arrangements between the parties subsequent to the declaration before the Land Tribunal. Shahapaur as on 31 12 1974 ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of his submissions that the 1st defendant being a widow of a co-parcener and as her husband died in the year 1952 did not acquire any full right in her favour in respect of the joint family properties 1) 1993 (2) Mysore Law Journal 267 Anandibai vs Sona Bai Mahadev Rajadhyakshi and another 2) AIR 1966 Mysore 130 (V 43 33) Veerupanna and another VB Eramma and Others 3) AIR 1970 SC 1019 Dindayal and another vs. Rajaram 4) AIR 1989 SC 1179 Munshi Singh and Others vs. Smt Sohan Bai by L Rs 5) AIR 1995 SC 995 N Jayalakshmi Ammal and another vs R Gopala Pathar and another it was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Anandibai vs Sona Bai Mahadev Rajadhyakshis case reported in 1993 (2) Mys L J 267 that when a family member of a joint family whose husband died before the Hindu Succession Act came into force had only a right of maintenance which was not proprietary in character such a member of the joint family was not entitled to claim possession of the properties of the joint family particularly when partition had not taken place and she had not been given any particular share or item of the properties and as such even if any of the male member under whom the female claims her lights, died after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, such female member cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act ( 12 ) IN AIR 1966 Mysore 130 (V 43 33) Veerupanna and another vs Eramma and Others another Division Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that even when a member of Hindu joint family claims to be in possession of any property at the time when the Hindu Succession Act came into force and to claim benefit of section 14 same possession has been traceable to any definite title or right of a family member in the family properties and if no such title is established under which possession could be claimed then provisions of Section 14 would not apply Likewise the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1019 Dindayal and another vs Rajaram held that for claiming benefit of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act a female heir has to be in possession of any property as on the day when the Act came into force and if it is not so cannot make a legal claim to the particular piece of property and the provisions of Section 14 will not apply to such properties In AIR 1989 SC 1179 Munshi Singh and Others vs Smt Sohan Bai by LRs it was held that a gift that had been effected by family head even before the provisions of Hindu Succession Act came into force could not lay claim to the enabling provisions of Section 14 to validate such gift in as much as on the day when the gift was effected, she did not have right, title or interest to the property which she had got it In AIR 1995 SC 995 N Jayalakshmi Ammal and another vs R Gopala Pathar and another the Supreme Court had occasion to hold that there cannot be any presumption that the husband of the surviving family heir should have died after the 1937 Act came into force when his whereabouts had not been heard for quite a few years i. e. , ever since the year 1930 and when it had not been established that he had been found alive till the Hindu Womens Right to Properties Act, 1937 came into force in which event only his widow could lay claim to his share in the joint family property by enlargement of her limited right under the provisions of 1937 Act This is a case which rests more on the facts and the claim having failed when the widow of one of the two co-parceners of a joint family could not establish that her husband had survived beyond the year 1937 The ratio laid down in these cases on the principle of law flowing from it, is attracted to the facts of the present case This appeal reveals very peculiar facts and the outcome of this appeal is the result of the conduct of the plaintiff/appellants ( 13 ) IN the instant case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the husband of 1st defendant died in the year 1952 It is not the case of any body that succession had opened prior to this year The learned counsel for the appellants attacks the judgment of the courts below on the premise that they are wrong in holding that the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable and that the 1st defendant had established full ownership in respect of plaint D schedule properties and submits that such a finding is clearly unsustainable in the light of the law as has been developed from the decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court referred to above The benefit of Section 14 to the 1st defendant has been extended in respect of property that she could not have claimed in the year 1952 ( 14 ) IN the present case plaintiffs had given a solemn declaration before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur in the context of the extent of holding that the family could have under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and therein it had been indicated that the family was entitled to hold 34 units in all and in computing this extent of 34 units to the entire family, the holdings of each smaller branches should be added It was the specific case of the 1st plaintiff that the 1st defendant as also Smt Muddamma could hold an extent of 10 units of land each which had been attributed to the smaller families of these two ladies in the bigger joint family The total holding of the joint family to be arrived at as 34 units had been made up in the declaration given by the 1st plaintiff before the Land Tribunal by adding up the 10 units that had been shown to be the share of the 1st defendant in the joint family holding It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant had a right of maintenance against the joint family properties and it was because of such right of maintenance that the 1st plaintiff had given a declaration and had indicated that the let defendant as a member of a smaller family in the joint family was entitled to hold 10 units in lieu of her claim for maintenance Learned counsel also submits that it was because of the claim towards maintenance of the 1st defendant against the properties of the joint family, 10 units had been attributed to her branch of the family and accordingly had been added to make up the 34 units which the joint family in all was entitled to hold That the 10 units of lands so attributed to the branch of the family of the 1st defendant was merely towards the maintenance of the female members of the family but there was no partition nor any specific property had been given to the female members However subsequent conduct of the parties discernable from the material on record indicates that it was given effect to and from out of the land which were subject matter of declaration before the Land Tribunal Shahapur suit D schedule lands had been given to the 1st defendant and she had been put in possession and the revenue records had also been mutated in the name of the 1st defendant It is only thereafter that the appellants filed the present suit for a declaration that even in respect of plaint D schedule properties they are the owners that the defendants did not have any right, title or interest in plaint D schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereto, with the aid of the Court. ( 15 ) EVEN assuming that the 1st defendant did not have any limited right or definite ascertainable right in the joint family properties as on 1952 when her husband died and that position continued till 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act came into force under which on the application of the provisions of Section 14 such limited right could have enlarged into a full right, the members of the family so acted at the time of giving declaration before the Land Tribunal, that it was because of their understanding that the 1st defendant was entitled to about 1/3rd share in the joint family properties being widow of one of the three sons of late Basanna the propositus of the joint family It was in recognition of such right which later had been transformed into a claim after the death of her husband that the 1st plaintiff himself gave a declaration before the Land Tribunal Parties had acted on that It was an arrangement amongst the members of the family in the year 1974 or may be prior to that which was reflected in the declaration given before the Land Tribunal If the plaint D schedule properties had been given to the 1st defendant, she had been put in possession of the properties in recognition of the claim towards maintenance, when she was put in possession and parties acted in accordance with the arrangement, by the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the 1st defendant becomes full owner of this property on and from that day notwithstanding the fact that she did not have such right or acquire any title to the properties by way of enlargement immediately after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into operation The provisions of Section 14 not merely operates at the commencement of this Act but will operate as and when an occasion arises with the limited estate or limited right of a female Hindu gets enlarged and for the benefit of such female heir of a joint family Admittedly the right of maintenance in favour of the 1st defendant from out of the properties of the joint family is not disputed and in recognition of this right certain properties had been allotted to the 1st defendant, may be much later in point of time from the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into force i. e. , the year 1974 or prior to that That does give a full right to the female heir It is to be noted that in the instant case there was no division in the joint family at all and plaintiffs 1 to 4 had constituted the surviving male heirs of the joint family while the 1st defendant was a female member of the joint family entitled for her right of maintenance as against the joint family In the circumstances there is no error in the findings recorded by the courts below holding that the 1st defendant was entitled to hold the properties described in plaint D schedule properties as her absolute properties and that the plaintiffs could not claim that only the surviving male members of the family alone were the absolute owners of the entire joint family properties and as such the suit was required to be decreed granting the relief claimed by the plaintiffs. ( 16 ) THE plaintiffs cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold Plaintiffs cannot be permitted nor can be granted any relief by the Court Contrary to their own solemn declaration given before the Land Tribunal for the purpose of computing the extent of holding the family could retain under law and for identifying lands in excess of which holding were required to be surrendered to the Government as being beyond the permitted ceiling limit Declaration of the 1st plaintiff was given on behalf of all the members of the joint family including the female members of the family and such a declaration having indicated that lands to the extent of 10 units had been the entitlement of the 1st defendants branch of the family in the sense she was the widow of one of the three brothers who could have shared the joint family properties and after such declaration the 1st defendant having been actually put in possession of lands to the extent of this 10 units and the parties having acted as such and even the entries in the revenue record having got mutated to indicate this development, by their own conduct plaintiffs are clearly estopped from contending to the contrary to the detriment of the defendants ( 17 ) IN the circumstances I do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent findings and conclusion of the courts below nor any error in law in arriving at such conclusion in the result, this appeal is dismissed without being admitted. --- *** --- .