JUDGMENT Hon’ble N. K. Mehrotra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Kheri, in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1981 allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1981 passed by the Munsif, Kheri in Regular Suit No. 420 of 1979 (Maya Devi v. Smt. Ram Kali and others). 3. Plaintiff-appellant Maya Devi filed the suit for partition of the house in suit claiming half share in it. The Munsif decreed the suit on 14.3.1983 for partition of the house in suit declaring half share of plaintiff-appellant Smt. Maya Devi. Deceased-respondent No. 1 Smt. Ram Kali filed first appeal, which was decided by the Civil Judge, Kheri. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 4. The second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. PLAINTIFFS 5. The house in suit originally belonged to one Gokul Shah and after his death, it was inherited to his two sons Raja Ram, the husband of deceased defendant-respondent No. 1 Smt. Ram Kali alias Parbati Devi and Babu Ram, the husband of the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Maya Devi. The aforesaid Raja Ram and Babu Ram mutually partitioned the house in suit and in the said partition, the northern portion was given to Raja Ram and the southern portion was given to Babu Ram and they came into possession thereof accordingly and lived therein till their life time. Babu Ram died leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant as his widow and a will in her favour giving his share in the house to the plaintiff and the plaintiff claims herself to be the owner of the half share in the house in suit on the basis of the will executed by her husband. Raja Ram died leaving behind the defendant-respondent No. 1 as his heir. DEFENDANT’S CASE 6. According to the defendants-respondents, Babu Ram, the husband of the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Maya Devi had executed a registered deed of relinquishment in 1945 in favour of his brother Raja Ram and as such he became exclusive owner of the house in suit and after his death, the defendants are exclusive owner of the same. DEFENDANT’S CASE 6. According to the defendants-respondents, Babu Ram, the husband of the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Maya Devi had executed a registered deed of relinquishment in 1945 in favour of his brother Raja Ram and as such he became exclusive owner of the house in suit and after his death, the defendants are exclusive owner of the same. It was pleaded that late Babu Ram had also filed a suit for cancellation of the deed of relinquishment in the Court of the Munsif which was dismissed on 5.12.1995 and the plaintiff is bound by it and the suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata. It was further pleaded by them that late Babu Ram had no right to execute the will in respect of the house in suit and the plaintiff received no title in the house in suit on the basis of the will executed by late Babu Ram. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession and the suit is barred by time. The plea of under-valuation and deficiency of Court-fee was also taken. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN REPLICATION 7. The plaintiff alleged that the deed of relinquishment was fraudulently got executed by Raja Ram, the husband of the defendant-respondent No. 1 and the suit for cancellation of the deed was got dismissed in default on the representation of the said Raja Ram that he would execute the necessary documents transferring his half share in the house in suit. It was also stated that thereafter Raja Ram executed a deed on 31.3.1952 transferring back the half share of Babu Ram in the house in suit and thereafter, the partition took place. It was also stated that Babu Ram remained in possession of his share till his death and after the death of Babu Ram, the plaintiff has been in possession. ISSUES FRAMED IN THE TRIAL COURT 8. The following issues have been framed by the learned trial Court : “(1) Whether the suit is under valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient? (2) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? (3) Whether the plaintiff is co-owner of the house in suit and in possession thereof? If so, what is her share? (4) Whether there took any mutual partition in respect of the house in suit, if so that was the settlement? (5) Whether the suit is barred by time? (2) Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? (3) Whether the plaintiff is co-owner of the house in suit and in possession thereof? If so, what is her share? (4) Whether there took any mutual partition in respect of the house in suit, if so that was the settlement? (5) Whether the suit is barred by time? (6) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?” 9. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were most relevant issues on which the decision of the suit is based. The learned Munsif decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff and after interpreting the deed dated 31.3.1952 executed by Raja Ram declared the plaintiff as the owner of the half share in the disputed house. 10. The first appellate Court without disturbing the finding on issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 reversed the finding on issue No. 3 after giving the interpretation of the aforesaid deed dated 31.3.1952 executed by late Raja Ram and consequentially dismissed the suit. 11. In the second appeal the following substantial question of law were formulated : “(1) Whether on a true interpretation of the deed dated 31st March, 1952 executed by Raja Ram, husband of respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant’s husband, the latter became co-sharer with Raja Ram? (2) Whether the right conferred by the deed is right of ownership on right of mere possession?” 12. Both the learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments only to the interpretation of the deed dated 31.3.1952 executed by Raja Ram, the husband of the defendant-respondent No. 1 in this second appeal in favour of the appellant’s husband. The execution of the deed of relinquishment executed by late husband of the plaintiff-appellant, the execution of the will by late husband of the plaintiff-appellant are not in dispute. The dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the relinquishment deed filed by late husband of the plaintiff-appellant is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit for cancellation of the relinquishment deed was dismissed in default and after that the deed dated 31.3.1952 Ext. 1 in the record of the lower Court was executed. The dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the relinquishment deed filed by late husband of the plaintiff-appellant is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit for cancellation of the relinquishment deed was dismissed in default and after that the deed dated 31.3.1952 Ext. 1 in the record of the lower Court was executed. The relevant portion of this deed is as follows : ÞeSa vius jkth ls vius edku dk vk/kk fgLlk vius HkkbZ eqlEes ckcwjke oYn xksdqy’kkg dkSe ckFke oS’; lkfdu y[kheiqj dks nsrk gw¡ o ekfyd dkfey fuLQ fgLls dk djrk gw¡ ckcwjke dks edku cspus o jsgu dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS flQZ og jg ldrs gSa ulyu nj ulyu vxj gedks t:jr ukxgkuh csapus dh iM+s rks ge vius edku dk vk/kk fgLlk tks gekjk jgk eqlEes ckcwjke ds gh gkFk csap ldrs gSa nwljs ds gkFk ugha csap ldrs gSa cl ;g bdjkjukek fy[k fn;k fd lun jgs o dke vkosAß 13. The aforesaid agreement between the husband of the plaintiff-appellant and the husband of the deceased defendant-respondent No. 1 makes it clear that late Raja Ram, the husband of the defendant-respondent No. 1 who was the owner of the entire house on the basis of the earlier relinquishment deed executed by Babu Ram had agreed to transfer half share in the house only for the purpose of his residence from generation to generation. The restricted title was agreed to be transferred. It does not confer the absolute title of half portion of the house on Babu Ram. Babu Ram had no right to transfer it either by sale or by mortgage. Babu Ram had only the right of residence from generation to generation. The will executed by Babu Ram in favour of the plaintiff-appellant could be executed with regard to his rights in this disputed house and his rights were not the absolute rights. Late Babu Ram could transfer only the restricted right to live through the will. The plaintiff-appellant could get only the restricted right to live on the basis of both the documents namely, the will executed by Babu Ram and the deed of the agreement dated 31.3.1952 executed by Raja Ram, late husband of the deceased respondent No. 1. Late Babu Ram could transfer only the restricted right to live through the will. The plaintiff-appellant could get only the restricted right to live on the basis of both the documents namely, the will executed by Babu Ram and the deed of the agreement dated 31.3.1952 executed by Raja Ram, late husband of the deceased respondent No. 1. It appears from the aforesaid averments in the deed dated 31.3.1952 executed by the husband of the respondent No. 1 that the plaintiff-appellant had no right to get partition for getting her absolute title in the half portion of the house. It is clear from the aforesaid deed that neither Babu Ram nor his wife, the plaintiff-appellant became the co-sharer with Raja Ram on the basis of misdeed dated 31.3.1952. It is also clear from the deed that the deed-dated 31.3.1952 only confers the right of mere possession for the purpose of residence from generation to generation in the disputed house. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal Dismissed. ———