JUDGMENT:- This is a Second Appeal at the instance of defendant against whom decree was passed by the first appellate Court for declaration and possession. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. The suit property was their ancestral property. The property came in the hands of their father Dattatraya. Thereafter Dattatraya died in the year 1947 leaving behind him three sons i.e. plaintiff. defendant and one A wadhut and widow Parvatibai. He also left behind him large property. There was a partition between the plaintiff, defendant their mother Parvatibai and brother in the year 1966. Each of the parties was given a separate share. Some property was allotted to Parvatibai the mother. It was agreed between the parties that upon death of Parvatibai the property held by her would go to the plaintiff and his two brothers. It is contended that after this partition there was yet another partition which came to be effected on 26.05.1968. According to this partition the property which fell to the share of Parvatibai was to revert back to plaintiff alone after her death. This had happened only because of the fact that plaintiff had surrendered his share in the house. The plaintiff's mother died on 16.09. I 986. The plaintiff, therefore, asked the defendant to deliver back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant refused, hence this suit for possession of the property described in the suit. 3. Defendant resisted the suit by filing Written Statement. He does not dispute that the suit property belonged to the joint family. He also does not dispute that there was a partition in the year 1966 and after 1966 there was a re-partition of the entire property of the family. He also does not dispute that the suit property was allotted to the share of Parvatibai. It is the contention of the defendant that Parvatibai was exclusive owner of the suit property and she had therefore every right to dispose of the property according to her wishes. There could be no restriction on her right to dispose of the property by virtue of provisions contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is the contention of the defendant that Parvatibai was exclusive owner of the suit property and she had therefore every right to dispose of the property according to her wishes. There could be no restriction on her right to dispose of the property by virtue of provisions contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Further the defendant contended in para 9 of the Written Statement that Parvatibai had expressed her will at the time of execution of the said partition deed. The defendant submits that since that was the will she had every right to revoke the same and cancel the same. It is his contention that Parvatibai had executed a gift deed in his favour and as such under the said gift deed he has become the exclusive owner of the suit property. Thus defendant submits that plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the suit property. 4. Learned Judge of the trial Court found that gift deed executed by Parvatibai in favour of defendant was not forged or fabricated document. It conferred right. title and interest on the defendant. Parvatibai had become full owner of the property and therefore she had right to dispose of the property, holding so he dismissed the suit. 5. Learned Judge of the appellate Court however reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that the gift deed under which the defendant was claiming was a forged and fabricated document. It did not confer any right, title and interest on him. On the other hand, he found that contents of the partition deed itself were the last will of the deceased Parvatibai and under that will plaintiff had become the full owner of the property. Holding so he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by this finding this Second Appeal is filed by the defendant. 6. Appeal came to be admitted by this Court on following two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, Parwatibai had become absolute owner of the property given to her in partition and, therefore, she is entitled to bequeath the same in any manner as per her wishes? 2. 6. Appeal came to be admitted by this Court on following two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, Parwatibai had become absolute owner of the property given to her in partition and, therefore, she is entitled to bequeath the same in any manner as per her wishes? 2. When the document of gift executed by Parvatibai in favour of appellant is not accepted by the Courts below and since there is no other document executed by Parvatibai bequeathing her property, whether after her death, her share would devolve on the sons and daughters as contemplated by Sections IS and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act? 7. Appeal came to be admitted upon hearing the appellant and respondent's counsel. Substantial questions of law were formulated upon hearing both sides. It must. Therefore, be assumed that the parties did not address the Court on any other point and these two points alone were treated as controversial. The controversy therefore has to be restricted to these points alone. 8. A few admitted facts may be narrated as follows: The suit property was the ancestral joint family property of plaintiff, defendant their brother and mother. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died in 1947 leaving behind three sons and widow. Initially there was a partition of the property on 12.05.1966 vide Ex.53. The property was repartitioned on 27.05.1968 vide Ex.6 J. In this partition each of the brothers and mother was given share. It is a registered partition. The mother is dead. Partition Ex.61 recites that the field put to the share of the mother upon her death would go to the plaintiff alone. The mother died in the year 1986 and the plaintiff therefore claimed title and possession of the propel1y. 9. With the above undisputed facts I proceed to deal with the first substantial question of law. Undisputedly the suit property was joint family property. The mother has a share in joint family property being a member of the joint family. The only restriction is that she cannot herself claim the partition. In the instant case all members of the joint family had decided to effect a partition of the joint family property and in that partition Parvatibai the mother got the share in the joint family property and it must be said that she got it as of right. The only restriction is that she cannot herself claim the partition. In the instant case all members of the joint family had decided to effect a partition of the joint family property and in that partition Parvatibai the mother got the share in the joint family property and it must be said that she got it as of right. Since the suit property came to her share on partition of joint family property she became the full owner of the same by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Since the property was given to her after 1956 and she held it until her death in 1986 the case certainly fell under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Law is well settled that if a female receives and possesses any property which she got against her pre-existing right she becomes the full owner of the property and not limited owner. Parwatibai had therefore every right 10 dispose of the suit propeJ1y according 10 her will. 10. Shri. Bhamburkar learned counsel for the respondent did not in fact dispute that the case falls under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. There is no scope to apply provision of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act to the instant case since the property is not given to her for the first time without pre-existing right. It has therefore to be concluded that Parvatibai was the full owner and had a right to dispose of the property. 11. This takes me to the next substantial question of law. We have seen that Parvatibai had become full owner of the property and she had a power of disposition of the property according to her will. Defendant had set up a gift deed to claim the ownership of the suit property. First appellate Court has found that gift deed executed by the mother is not proved. There are no concurrent findings to that effect but then the first appellate court did hold that the gift deed Ex.129 set up by the defendant is not a genuine document and was a forged one. The appeal is not admitted on the validity of the gift deed at all. That finding of the first appellate Court also binds this Court being of the finding of fact by the last court of facts. The appeal is not admitted on the validity of the gift deed at all. That finding of the first appellate Court also binds this Court being of the finding of fact by the last court of facts. In view of this the second substantial question of law is formulated. The question therefore is whether Parvatibai could be said to have died intestate and whether her property would go according to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The first appellate Court while relying upon the contents of the partition deed Ex.61 found that it could be treated as a testament and a last will of the deceased and the property must pass over according to that recital or disposition. At the cost of the repetition it must be observed here that there was first partition on 12.05.66 vide Ex.53 and subsequently there was another partition vide Ex.64 in 1968. All three brothers and their mother were party to this document and have signed the document. The recital in the partition deed as translated is as follows: "After the death of party No.4 (Parvatibai) the entire estate which has fallen to her share would go to party No.2 i.e. plaintiff and as owner there of.'- Thus it was a disposition of the property by Parvatibai. She had agreed and desired that after her death the property would go to her son Manohar the plaintiff. This document is admittedly signed by Parvatibai. It is attested by two attesting witnesses. This partition deed, therefore, fulfills the three conditions, one that the document was executed by the testator, two, it is signed by the attesting witnesses. Third, it speaks of disposition of the property. The most important thing is that defendant himself makes following pleadings in para 9 of the Written Statement: "However, the deceased Parwatibai expressed her will at time to the so called partition dated 27.05.68 that her property will be given to the plaintiff after her death and therefore, the recital in the partition deed dated 27.05.68 was her will and therefore it cannot be said that she herself has created any restrictions upon her interest and property. It is submitted that as deceased Parwatibai has made her will in the said partition deed and as the said recital of the partition deed were her own Will, she has had full powers and rights to cancel or revoke her will and therefore, she was lawfully entitled to dispose of her own property by way of any instrument." With the above admission and a clear pleading the recitals in the partition deed were rightly treated by the first appellate Court as the last will of deceased Parvatibai. What is necessary to be seen is the intention of the testator, the attestation of the Will, whether the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind and whether there is a proper disposition of the property or not. Though the document is a partition deed it is a well settled law that an instrument of whatever denomination may operate as a Will The above will can be said to have been executed by the deceased Parvatibai of her free Will This can be gathered from the defendant's own pleadings which have been quoted by me in this paragraph, Further from this Will it is clear that she has had an intention to regulate the succession after death and therefore made such a declaration with regard to her own property, There is also a reference that the property shall pass after death. The above document certainly fulfills all the conditions of a valid will. In the circumstances it cannot be said that Parvatibai had died intaste, There was no question of her property passing over to her heirs according to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Judge of the first appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence in the matter and findings as recorded by him do not call for any interference. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.