JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Chakravorty (Junior), learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 12-2-98 passed by the learned District Judge, Nalbari in T. S. No. 19/97 allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9-9-97 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nalbari in T. S. No. 4/92 wherein the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant declaring his right, title and interest over 10 lechas of land with joint possession thereupon. 3. At the time of admission of this appeal on 17-6-98, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: (1) Whether the learned Court below failed to consider Sections 8 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the matter of succession to property and Women's absolute right over the inherited property? (2) Whether Ex. 1, the deed of gift, and the mutation of name of appellant in the zamabandi are proof of title of the appellant over 10 lechas of suit land? (3) Whether the said deed of gift, Ext. 1 was completed as per provision of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 4. The necessary facts in brief may be narrated in order to arrive at a proper resolution on the substantial questions of law framed herein above. 5. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration of right, title and recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit land stating inter alia that a plot of land measuring 2 K-1 Ls out of 3Bs-3Ks-19 Ls covered by Dag Nos. 1488 and 1489 in P. P. Patta No. 314 was gifted by one Smt Pakhi Bala Das, wife of Late Amrit Das to him- After getting the aforesaid land on gift, he retained 10 Ls in his possession and returned the balance by executing a sale deed to the two daughters of Smt Pakhi Bala Das on her request. While he was possessing and enjoying over the said 10 Ls. of land by developing his portion by-earth filling, the defendant/respondent, being the daughter of Late Amrit Das through his first wife, taking advantage of her possession in the adjacent boundary, dispossessed the plaintiff from 3 Kathas of land denying his title. While he was possessing and enjoying over the said 10 Ls. of land by developing his portion by-earth filling, the defendant/respondent, being the daughter of Late Amrit Das through his first wife, taking advantage of her possession in the adjacent boundary, dispossessed the plaintiff from 3 Kathas of land denying his title. Hence, this suit was filed for declaration of title as regards the entire 10 Ls of land and for recovery of possession from the dispossessed portion of 3 Kathas of land. 6. While contesting the suit, the defendant-respondent denied all the averments arid contentions made in the plaint by filing written statement stating inter-alia that after her mother's death, her father Late Amrit Lal married another lady and after the death of her, he gave shelter to Pakhi Bala Das who had deserted Her earlier husband and lived with her father along with two daughters from her earlier marriage. However, two daughters of Pakhi Bala Das died while living with her father. It was also pleaded that through her father. Pakhi Bala gave birth to two daughters who were arrayed as proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit. Her contention was that Pakhi Bala Das, not being a married wife of her father, did not acquire any title over the immovable property so left by her father and whatever property left by her father was inherited only by her and other two daughters of Pakhi Bala Das from her father's property and hence the plaintiff had acquired no title through the so-called deed of gift so executed by Pakhi Bala Das. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 7 Issues with one additional issue and those are as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit? 3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 4) Whether the suit is bad for non payment of proper court fee? 5) Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from "Ka" schedule land described in the plaint and is entitled to khas possession? 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 7) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity? Additional Issue: 8. 5) Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from "Ka" schedule land described in the plaint and is entitled to khas possession? 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 7) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity? Additional Issue: 8. Whether Pakhibala Das has transferable interest over the suit land and within the boundary mentioned in the plaint? 8. The appellant examined as many as 4 witnesses during the trial including himself as P. W. 3 and exhibited the registered deed of gift as Ext. 1, Zamabandi as Ext. 2 and Mutation order in favour of the plaintiff as Ext. 3 including the land revenue receipt as Ext. 4 when the respondent examined and adduced evidence of 4 witnesses including herself as D.W. 1. The respondent also exhibited the relevant documents by making Exhibit "Ka", "Kha", "Ga" and "Unga". 9. On careful perusal of the materials available on record including the Exhibits, on proper appreciation of the evidences adduced on behalf of both sides and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 9-9-97 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff has the right, title and interest over the 10 Ls. of land. While deciding Issue No. 5, relates to 'whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from "Ka" schedule land described in the plaint and is entitled for khas possession', the same was answered in the negative and in favour of the defendant. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent carried the same before the learned Appellate Court through T. A. No. 19/97 and the learned District Judge, being the appellate Court, by his judgment dated 12-2-98 allowed the appeal against the plaintiff/appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and thereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, 11. Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned judgment and decree, has forcefully contended that the learned appellate Court acted erroneously and with illegality in arriving at the findings of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned judgment and decree, has forcefully contended that the learned appellate Court acted erroneously and with illegality in arriving at the findings of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. According to him, the learned Judge took three wrong views namely; (1) as per Sub-section (5) of Article 357 of Mulla's Hindu Law, a widow may in certain cases, by gift, dispose of a small portion of the property inherited by her from her husband, but she cannot dispose of whole property inherited by her when Ext. 1 (Gift deed) did not disclose how much property inherited by her. However, such view was contrary to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the Act) which provides absolute right to the property to a female Hindu. (2) The recital of deed of gift Ext. 1 was silent as regards delivery of possession when Ext. 1 clearly spoke about delivery of possession and (3) the deed of gift Ext. 1 was not attested by requisite witnesses whereas the deed of gift was attested by two witnesses. 12. In view of the same, the learned Counsel has forcefully asserted that both the views/findings No. 2 and 3 above noticed suffer from perversity inasmuch as it was apparent on the face of the record that there was categorical recital in the Ext. 1, the deed of gift, as regards the delivery of possession to the plaintiff as well as 2 witnesses attested the said deed of gift i.e. Ext. 1. 13. Coming to the other finding i.e. No. 1, it is argued that in referring to Sub-section (5) of Article 357 of Mulla's Hindu Law, learned Judge took totally wrong approach. In the said text, there is a clear reference to Section 14 of the Act which was, perhaps lost sight of by the learned Judge. 14. It would be relevant to quote above referred provision of law herein: Sub-section (5) of Article 357 reads as under: (5). A widow may in certain cases by gift dispose of a small portion of the property inherited by her from her husband, but she cannot do so by will. Her rights have now been considerably enlarged by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Reference may be made to the notes under that section post. 15. A widow may in certain cases by gift dispose of a small portion of the property inherited by her from her husband, but she cannot do so by will. Her rights have now been considerably enlarged by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Reference may be made to the notes under that section post. 15. According to him, from the above provision, it is clear that prior to the commencement of Section 14 of the Act, a Hindu widow has a limited right to alienate her husband's property but after enactment of the Act, right of a Hindu widow has been brought under a considerable change giving her an absolute right over the property of her husband and as such, according to him, this finding is also illegal and without any support of the prevailing Statute Book. 16. As regards the finding of the learned appellate Court in respect of the share of Pakhi Bala Das in her husband's property, Mr. Sen Deka has submitted that Late Amrit Das was the absolute owner and possessor over 1 B-1K-6 Ls of land and he had three wives, including Pakhi Bala Das. Other 2 wives predeceased Late Amrit Das, even one of them Rashmi Bala died issueless. In this backdrop, the land of Late Amrit Das while devolved upon the defendant/respondent as well as Pakhi Bala along with her 2 daughters, one share went to the defendant and other share to Pakhi Bala Das along with her 2 daughters. 17. In support of such submission, Mr. P. S. Deka has referred to the contentions made in paragraph 7 of the written statement, wherein the defendant admitted that half of the share of the land measuring 2K-5 Ls was possessed by her while other half of the land was possessed and occupied by Pakhi Bala Das along with two daughters. Hence, this goes to show that Pakhi Bala Das had acquired a right, title over the suit land and the deed of gift so executed by her was a valid one. It is contended by Mr. Sen Deka, that in the premises aforesaid, the learned District Judge came to a wrong finding giving rise to the substantial questions of law so formulated at the time of admission and set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court may be restored accordingly. 18. Supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. It is contended by Mr. Sen Deka, that in the premises aforesaid, the learned District Judge came to a wrong finding giving rise to the substantial questions of law so formulated at the time of admission and set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court may be restored accordingly. 18. Supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Chakravorty, (Jr), learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has strenuously argued that the learned appellate Court was absolutely justified in dismissing the appellant's suit as the plaintiff failed to show the specific share held by Pakhi Bala Das at the time of execution of gift deed in order to claim her right, title and interest over the suit land. He has categorically submitted that at no point of time Pakhi Bala proved her share. Referring to the pleadings in the written statement, Mr. Chakravorty has argued that the plaint did not disclose at all her right over the land and to what extent she was possessing her share while describing the land in schedule to the plaint. No where in the plaint her share was disclosed or mentioned. That being so, no illegality and/or irregularity has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in arriving at the decision against the appellant as there was nothing on record to indicate what was the area of land left behind by Late Amrit Das and what was the extent of share of Pakhi Bala Das held to that property. Until and unless the total area of land and extent of interest left behind by Late Amrit Das in favour of Pakhi Bala, is disclosed, it cannot be accepted that Pakhi Bala Das had acquired any title to the extent of 2Ks-1 Lecha. 19. As regards No. 3 substantial question of law, Mr. Chakravorty has fairly submitted that the deed of gift Exhibit-1 did not suffer from any illegality in view of Sections 122 and 123 of the T. P. Act, 1882. His contention only is that Smt. Pakhi Bala Das at no point of time had acquired any right over the 2K-1 Ls of land to make the same a subject matter of the deed of gift Exhibit-1. 20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions and submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties. His contention only is that Smt. Pakhi Bala Das at no point of time had acquired any right over the 2K-1 Ls of land to make the same a subject matter of the deed of gift Exhibit-1. 20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions and submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties. I have also carefully perused the materials available on record including the Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 including the impugned judgment and decree of both the Courts below. 21. It transpires that so far the Exhibit-1 is concerned, it is admitted by both the parties that Exhibit-1 had specifically recited as regards the delivery of possession and the said document was duly attested by the two witnesses and as such, the findings in this regard by the learned appellate Court to the extent that there was no recital and the said deed of gift was not being attested by the two witnesses are perverse and substantial question of law No. 3 is hereby answered accordingly. 22. So far the share of Pakhi Bala Das is concerned, necessary to decide other two substantial questions of law, it appears that after the death of 2 other wives as well as Amrit Das, his entire property of 1B-1K 6Ls being the one third share of Late Amrit Lal, was possessed and occupied by defendant/daughter of first wife of Late Amrit Das and Pakhi Bala Das the other surviving wife of Late Amrit Lal Das along with her two daughters. That being so, Pakhi Bala Das had acquired right over the 2Ks-1 Ls of land, being the subject matter of the gift deed, by way of inheritance of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act from her deceased husband's property. It is also found from perusal of the written statement in paragraph 7 that the defendant accepted 2 Ks-5 Ls of land as half of the share. Admittedly, both the defendant and Pakhi Bala Das along with her daughters were occupying half of the share of the land in question. It has also come from the record that after getting the aforesaid land on gift, the plaintiff retained 10 Ls. in his possession and returned the balance by executing a sale deed in favour of two daughters of Pakhi Bala Das as the said land was desired by them. It has also come from the record that after getting the aforesaid land on gift, the plaintiff retained 10 Ls. in his possession and returned the balance by executing a sale deed in favour of two daughters of Pakhi Bala Das as the said land was desired by them. In fact, two daughters of Pakhi Bala Das, who were arrayed as Defendants 2 and 3, did not contest the suit claiming any right over the property of their father. From the perusal of the Zamabandi, it also transpires that the name of Pakhi Bala Das was mutated as co-pattadars in the total area of land 3 Bs-3Ks-10 Ls covered by Dag No. 1486 and 1489 under P. P. No. 314. Therefore, in view of Section14 of the Act, it can be said that Pakhi Bala Das had acquired absolute right over her property so left by Late Amrit Das to the share of 2K-5Ls as admitted by the defendant, 23. All three substantial questions of law formulated hereinabove are answered in: favour of the appellant and the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-2-98 passed by the learned appellate Court is hereby set aside and quashed and the judgment and decree dated 9-9-97 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Nalbarirt is hereby restored. 24. In the result, the appeal succeeds and stands allowed. 25. Send down the L.C. R. forthwith. Appeal allowed