JUDGMENT 1. This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs under section 100 of CP Code against the judgment/decree, dated 12.10.1984 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ujjain in CA No. 30 of 1982 (Old No.) New No. 20 of 1984-A, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 90 of 1975, decided by I Civil Judge, Class II, Khachrod, on 31.3.1982. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below has erred in holding that Bhulibai was a limited owner of the property left behind by deceased Nandaji? 2. Whether the Will executed by deceased Bhulibai on 15.3.1945 was invalid? 3. Whether respondent No.1 was the sole owner of the property in question after the death of Bhulibai?" 2. Facts of the case need to be taken note of in brief. One Nandaji was the original holder of the house in suit. He had a wife Bhulibai, three daughters -- Soni Bai, Naina Bai and Ganga Bai and one son -- Asharam. Nandaji died prior to 1937 leaving behind his widow - Bhuli Bai and four children i.e. three daughters and son. On his death, suit land came to be inherited by his widow Bhulibai. During life time of Bhulibai, she on 15.3.1945 executed one Will in favour of her three daughters (referred supra). However, two of her daughters namely Maina Bai and Gangabai as also son Asharam predeceased her (Bhulibai). In the year 1947, Bhulibai died leaving behind only one daughter Soni Bai and daughter-in-law - Budhibai. So far as Sonibai is concerned, she also expired in 1949 leaving behind her two sons (plaintiffs). The suit property was then sold by daughter-in-law of late Bhuli Bai namely Budhibai on 3.2.1975 to Thawar (respondent No.2 herein). 3. As observed supra, the plaintiffs who are sons of late Sonibai filed a suit for declaration that their mother Sonibai was the exclusive owner of suit house on the strength of Will dated 15.3.1945 executed by her mother Bhulibai. 3. As observed supra, the plaintiffs who are sons of late Sonibai filed a suit for declaration that their mother Sonibai was the exclusive owner of suit house on the strength of Will dated 15.3.1945 executed by her mother Bhulibai. It was alleged that though the Will stood in the name of three daughters but since, other two daughters of Bhuli Bai had predecessed her and only one was alive i.e. plaintiff's mother Sonibai, she became exclusive owner of the suit house and on her death, the plaintiffs being her only surviving legal representatives inherited the suit house and became owner, it is on this basis, the plaintiffs alleged that in no case defendant No. 1 who is daughter-in-law of late Bhulibai had any right to sell the suit house to defendant No. 2 by executing the sale-deed dated 3.2.1975. The suit was thus, filed to seek declaration of title to the suit house, cancellation of sale-deed dated 3.2.1975 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and possession of suit house from the defendants. The defence was that of denial. It was alleged that late Bhulibai being a limited owner of the suit house after the death of he husband -- Nandaji had no right to execute a Will dated 15.3.1945 and hence, the Will itself was a void document conferring no right, title and interest in any of her daughters including Sonibai - i.e. mother of plaintiffs. It was thus, alleged that when Will itself is void, then in such event Sonibai did not become owner of the suit house and so too the plaintiffs. 4. Both trial Court and first appellate Court dismissed the suit accepting the defence set up by the defendants giving rise to filing of this second appeal by the plaintiffs. 5. Heard Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondents. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the appeal and hence, it merits dismissal. 7. Indeed, the issue of law involved in the appeal is well settled and decide the issue against the appellants (plaintiffs). Mulla in his classic book on Hindu Law (16th Edition) in Article 180 has this to say so far as disposition of property by the widow is concerned: "180. 7. Indeed, the issue of law involved in the appeal is well settled and decide the issue against the appellants (plaintiffs). Mulla in his classic book on Hindu Law (16th Edition) in Article 180 has this to say so far as disposition of property by the widow is concerned: "180. No power to dispose of inherited property by Will -- A widow or other limited heir cannot in any case dispose of by Will property inherited by her or any portion thereof, whether the property be moveable or immoveable. 8. The aforementioned principle of law squarely applies to the facts of this case. Indeed, it is this principle of law which was relied on by the two Courts for non-suiting the appellants and in my opinion lightly. 9. When Nandaji i.e. husband of Bhuli Bai died prior to 1937 or let us say prior to 1956, then the suit property inherited by Bhuli Bai was not in its exclusive one but it was in its limited ownership. In no case Bhuli Bai had a right of disposition by Will because she had only a limited life interest in the suit house after the death of her husband. A concept of limited ownership is well accepted one. If the widow had, life interest then she cannot transfer her life interest by Will because it comes into effect only after her death. 10. So when Bhuli Bai had no right to execute the Will, it did not create any right in favour of her daughters after her death, it was a waste paper. Obviously, therefore, plaintiffs who claimed interest through Will from her mother did not get any interest in the suit house. The suit was therefore, rightly dismissed by holding that Bhuli Bai had a limited interest of ownership in the suit property as life interest. 11. In my opinion, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed on yet another ground which found proved on facts before the two Courts below. It was held that plaintiffs are not the real sons born from Sonibai but they are her step sons i.e. born out of second marriage of their father with some other lady. In view of this factual finding recorded by two Courts, the plaintiffs had no right to claim any interest through Sonibai who was not their real mother. 12. It was held that plaintiffs are not the real sons born from Sonibai but they are her step sons i.e. born out of second marriage of their father with some other lady. In view of this factual finding recorded by two Courts, the plaintiffs had no right to claim any interest through Sonibai who was not their real mother. 12. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.