JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N.Bhargawa, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Both these appeals under Section 100 C.P.C. have come up at the instance of defendants in the suit against common judgment and decree dated 20.9.1975 passed by Sri B.N.Srivastava, Ist Additional District Judge, Jhansi. 3. The two substantial questions of law, whereupon counsel for the parties have addressed this Court, are as under : i. Whether Kalawati acquired limited ownership right over the property in dispute despite having been transferred the disputed property vide gift deed dated 10.01.1941? ii. Whether gift deed executed by Kalawati on 18.12.1967 transferred only limited rights to the defendant-appellant in disputed property, which came to an end on 14.01.1971 so as to devolve disputed property after death of Kalawati, upon plaintiff-respondent? 4. The facts in brief, necessary for appropriate adjudication of the aforesaid questions, are stated as under : 5. Sri Chandra Prakash Anand son of Kundan Lal Anand instituted original suit no.203 of 1968 against defendants Smt. Kalawati, widow of Sri Hansraj Anand (Step Grand-Mother of plaintiff, died during pendency of suit and substituted by her legal representatives), Saraswati Inter College through its Manager and Smt. Raj alias Shakuntala Rani (sister of plaintiff), impleaded as defendant no.1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff claimed that after death of defendant no.1, the property, detailed at the bottom of plaint, is owned jointly by plaintiff and defendant no.3 and defendant no.2 would have no legal or otherwise right of ownership and possession over the said property. 6. The plaint case set up was that plaintiff's grand father, Sri Hansraj, after death of his wife, i.e. grand-mother of plaintiff, kept defendant no.1 with him. The plaintiff's father Kundan Lal, besides other property, owned houses no.924, 925, 926 (new no.560, 561, 562, 563, 564) situated at Mohalla Prem Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi. On the request of Sri Hansraj, plaintiff's father Kundan Lal gifted, vide gift deed dated 10.01.1941, the aforesaid houses to Smt. Kalawati, defendant no.1, for the purpose of her maintenance. Possession was also handed over to her. However, only limited rights were gifted vide aforesaid gift deed to defendant no.1 i.e. for the purpose of maintenance. After death of defendant no.1, the aforesaid property was to revert back to plaintiff's father or his legal representatives. Possession was also handed over to her. However, only limited rights were gifted vide aforesaid gift deed to defendant no.1 i.e. for the purpose of maintenance. After death of defendant no.1, the aforesaid property was to revert back to plaintiff's father or his legal representatives. After death of defendant no.1, owner of property would be Kundan Lal and his heirs. Sri Kundan Lal died on 12.12.1966, leaving his son i.e. plaintiff and daughter (defendant no.3). Thus, after death of defendant no.1, plaintiff and defendant no.3 would be owner of disputed property. The defendant no.1, however, in an illegal manner, executed a registered gift deed dated 18.12.1967, in favour of defendant no.2 and gave possession of disputed property to it. The aforesaid gift deed dated 18.12.1967 is not binding on plaintiff or defendant no.3. The defendant no.2 would not get any right over the said property, which was not possessed by defendant no.1 and cannot continue to retain property after death of defendant no.1. The defendant no.2, however, is insisting upon absolute interest over disputed property, even after death of defendant no.1, which is illegal and shows a mala fide intention on its part. It is in these circumstances, a declaration was prayed that disputed property, after death of defendant no.1, stood revert back to the plaintiff and defendant no.3, who are owner and entitled for possession thereof. The defendant no.2 shall have no right over the said property after the death of defendant no.1. 7. The defendants no.1 and 2 jointly contested the suit by filing their written statement dated 18.8.1968 wherein they claimed that defendant no.1 was legally wedded with Sri Hansraj. She was entitled for share available to a legally wedded wife in the property of Sri Hansraj. The entire property of Sri Hansraj was self acquired. For ownership of land over which houses in dispute were constructed, Government also staked its claim whereupon Sri Hansraj got a sale deed executed by Government to his favour so that there may not exist any dispute with regard to ownership of land. The plaintiff and his father had no right in the aforesaid property. Sri Hansraj executed a registered Will dated 9.7.1957 bequeathing his property to his heirs including his sons i.e. Ram Lal and Amar Singh etc. and defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 and Sri Amar Singh were given joint ownership over property. The plaintiff and his father had no right in the aforesaid property. Sri Hansraj executed a registered Will dated 9.7.1957 bequeathing his property to his heirs including his sons i.e. Ram Lal and Amar Singh etc. and defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 and Sri Amar Singh were given joint ownership over property. They partitioned the same among themselves on 12.6.1966 whereunder disputed house came to the share of defendant no.1. She, thereafter, possessed disputed house as sole owner. She executed a gift deed dated 18.12.1967 in favour of defendant no.2 and since then it is in possession of disputed property. 8. While the aforesaid suit was pending, plaintiff instituted another suit being Original Suit No.64 of 1971 seeking an injunction in respect of property, which was subject matter of original suit no.203 of 1968 for restraining defendants from dispossessing plaintiff from disputed property forcibly. In the later suit, Saraswati Inter College through its Manager was impleaded as defendant no.1 and Smt. Raj alias Shakuntala was impleaded as defendant no.2. 9. Both the aforesaid suits were consolidated and tried together. The Trial Court formulated following issues : ^^1- D;k oknh ,oa izfrokfnuh Jherh jkt fookfnr lEifRr ds Lokeh gSa\ 2- D;k fookfnr lEifRr esa izfroknuh Jherh dykorh ¼e`rd½ dks dsoy thou i;ZUr vf/kdkj Fkk\ 3- D;k Jh gal jkt fookfnr lEifRr ds ekfyd Fks\ 4- D;k Jherh dykorh fookfnr lEifRr dh Lokeh gks xbZ Fkh\ 5- D;k ;g okn focU/ku ds fo)kUr ds dkj.k ckf/kr gS\ 6- D;k oknh ,oa izfroknuh Jherh jkt okafNr ?kks"k.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 7@1- D;k oknh ,oa izfroknuh Jherh jkt fookfnr edkuksa ds ekfyd gSa] vkSj D;k fookfnr edkuksa ij mudk dCtk Hkh gS\ 7@2- D;k Jherh dykorh galjkt dh oS/k 7@3- D;k oknhx.k dksbZ vuqrks"k ,oa fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** "1. Whether the plaintiff and the lady defendant Smt. Raj are owners of the disputed property? 2. Whether the lady defendant Smt. Kalawati (deceased) had right over the disputed property during her lifetime only? 3. Whether Shri Hansraj was owner of the disputed property? 4. Whether Smt. Kalawati had become owner of the disputed property? 5. Whether the suit is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel? 6. Whether the plaintiff and the lady defendant Smt. Raj are entitled to secure the desired declaration? 7/1. 3. Whether Shri Hansraj was owner of the disputed property? 4. Whether Smt. Kalawati had become owner of the disputed property? 5. Whether the suit is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel? 6. Whether the plaintiff and the lady defendant Smt. Raj are entitled to secure the desired declaration? 7/1. Whether the plaintiff and the lady defendant Smt. Raj are owners of the disputed houses; and whether they also have possession over the disputed houses? 7/2. Whether Smt. Kalawati was not legally wedded wife of Hansraj; and whether she was not entitled to transfer the disputed property in favour of the school? 7/3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief and to an order of injunction?" (English Translation by Court) 10. Issues no.1 to 4 were answered against plaintiff and in favour of Saraswati Inter College. Issue no.5, which was to be proved by defendant, was answered in negative. On the basis of issues no.1 to 4, Trial Court held that plaintiff was not entitled for declaration it has sought in original suit no.203 of 1968. Thereafter issues no.7/1, 7/2 and 7/3, which had arisen from the original suit no.64 of 1971 were also answered against plaintiff. Consequently both the suits were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.1973 passed by Sri Jag Mohan Paliwal, Munsif Jhansi. 11. The plaintiff preferred two appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No.206 of 1973 arising from original suit no.203 of 1968 and Civil Appeal no.195 of 1973 arising from original suit no.64 of 1971. For deciding the appeals, Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") determined six points in civil appeal no.206 of 1973 and two in Civil Appeal No.195 of 1973 as under : Points for determination in Civil Appeal No.206 of 1973 i. Whether Kundan Lal, father of the plaintiff appellant, was the owner of the disputed houses ? ii. Whether Smt. Kalawati, wife of Hansraj, had only life interest in the property in suit, in view of the execution of the gift deed in the year 1941 in her favour by her step son Kundan Lal ? iii. Whether the father Hansraj of Kundan Lal, both being dead, was the real owner of the disputed property ? If so, to what effect ? iv. iii. Whether the father Hansraj of Kundan Lal, both being dead, was the real owner of the disputed property ? If so, to what effect ? iv. Whether Smt. Kalawati, under the deed of will executed in her favour in the year 1957, by her husband Hansraj and the subsequent partition between her and her step son Amar Singh under a document, dated 12.6.66, became a full owner of the disputed property ? v. Whether the defendant respondent Saraswati Inter College, under the deed of gift, dated 18.12.1967, executed by Smt. Kalawati, since deceased, acquired full ownership in the property in question ? vi. Whether the plaintiff appellant and the defendant respondent Smt. Raj, his sister, are now owners of the property in suit, since after the death of Smt. Kalawati ? and whether they are entitled to the relief of declaration as claimed by them. Points for determination in Civil Appeal No.195 of 1973 i. Whether the plaintff appellant and the defendant respondent Smt. Raj, his sister, are the owners in possession of the disputed houses ? ii. Whether they are entitled to the relief of injunction, as claimed by them. 12. Points (i) to (iv) were taken together. Points (i) and (ii) were answered in affirmative and (iii) and (iv) were answered in negative subject to observation that even if Hansraj was real owner of disputed house, in the sense, that he had applied his own money to acquire the site thereof and to construct the same, his intention was that his son Kundan Lal shall be the owner of houses. Consequently, point no.5 was also answered in negative and point (vi) was answered in affirmative. Coming to Civil Appeal no.195 of 1973, point no.(i) and (ii) both were answered in affirmative. As a result, both the appeals were allowed and declaration as well as injunction, as sought, was granted in favour of plaintiff. 13. From the judgment of Courts below, two things, which have been held finally are that Smt. Kalawati was legally wedded wife of Hansraj and this finding recorded by Trial Court, having not been challenged before LAC, had been confirmed by it. Thus, before this Court also, there is no dispute on this aspect. 13. From the judgment of Courts below, two things, which have been held finally are that Smt. Kalawati was legally wedded wife of Hansraj and this finding recorded by Trial Court, having not been challenged before LAC, had been confirmed by it. Thus, before this Court also, there is no dispute on this aspect. Hence this Court proceed to decide appeal with a concluded finding that Smt. Kalawati was legally wedded wife of Hansraj and entitled to her share as could have been available to a legally wedded wife at that time. 14. The pedigree of family, thus is as under : Hansraj & Kalawati (wife) Ram LalKundan LalAmar Singh Chandra Prakash (Plaintiff)Smt Raj (Defendant no.3) 15. It is admitted that Sri Hansraj died on 11.01.1958, Sri Kundan Lal died on 12.12.1966 and Smt. Kalawati breathed her last on 14.01.1971. 16. To answer the aforesaid questions, the first document, which has to be seen is the gift deed dated 10.01.1941, whether it had transferred only limited rights to Smt. Kalawati or there was a complete transfer of title, in all respect. 17. The aforesaid document is Exhibit 18. This is a document originally written in Urdu but its Hindi translation is also on record. It was executed by Sri Kundan Lal stating that out of his total property, three houses i.e. House Nos.924, 925 and 926 are being given to Smt. Kalawati for her maintenance. The relevant extract thereof reads as under : ^^blfy, feueqfdj vius okfyn lkgc dk dguk ekurs gq;s edkukr etdwjk okyk ekfyrh 1000 : 0 ,d gtkj : i;k flDdk dynkj o gd eqlEekr dykorh tksts ok gal jkt dkse vkuUn [k=h lkfdu lhijh cktkj >kalh gOck ;kuh c[k'kh'k djrk gwa vkSj dCtk n[ky tk;nkn egwck ij egwc vyg dk dj fn;k gSA vc egwck esa [kqn vkckn gks ;k fdlh nwljs dk fdjk;s ij nsos gj rjg vius bLrseky esa ykos vkSj eqlEekr dykorh egwc vyg tc rd ftUnk jgs ml oDr rd tk;nkn egwck ls viuh xqtj vkSdkr djsaA eqlEekr dykorh egwc vyg dks tk;nkn egwck dks cs;k jgu ;k ds nhxj rkSj ij eqUrfdy djus dk gd gkfly ugha gSA vkSj ckn oQkr eqLEekr dykorh egwc vyg tk;nknk egwck dk ekfyd feueqfdj ;k okjlku feueqfdj gksaxsA** (emphasis added) "Hence, I, the executant, by adhering to the advice of my father, gift the aforesaid houses worth Rs. 1,000/- Sikka Kaldar (British India Currency) to Ms. Kalawati W/o Hans Raj, Caste Anand Khatri, resident of Sipri Bazar, Jhansi; and have effected possession and occupation of the aforesaid property to the aforementioned lady. Now, the aforesaid Ms. Kalawati may herself inhabit the aforesaid property or rent it out to someone else or put it to her use in any way she likes; and may from out of the aforesaid property maintain herself as long as she is alive. The aforesaid Ms. Kalawati has no right to mortgage the aforesaid property or to transfer the same in any manner; and after death of aforesaid Ms. Kalawati, I, the executant, or my heirs shall be the owners of the aforesaid property." (English Translation by the Court) 18. The execution of aforesaid document is admitted by all the parties. Certain facts, which discern clearly therefrom are that this document was executed by Sri Kundan Lal, father of plaintiff Chandra Prakash mentioning specifically that aforesaid property belonged to him i.e. Sri Kundan Lal. This document was executed by accepting request of Sri Hansraj, father of Kundan Lal in 1941. When the aforesaid document was executed, Sri Hansraj was also alive and nobody disputed this document. The consent and acceptance of its contents by Sri Hansraj can be well assumed. It makes it very clear that disputed property belonged to Sri Kundan Lal on 10.1.1941 when he executed the said document and on this aspect, there was no dispute between father and son i.e. Hansraj and Kundan Lal. Even the two children of Hansraj i.e. Sri Ram Lal and Amar Singh had no such dispute at all. 19. Then the second thing, which is clear is that disputed property was gifted with limited right so as to be used for the purpose of maintenance during lifetime of Smt. Kalawati. She was not given any right of mortgage or otherwise transfer or alienate the said property. It also said that after death of Smt. Kalawati, owner of property would be author of document i.e. Sri Kundan Lal or his heirs. It leaves no manner of doubt that deed dated 10.01.1941 transferred only limited rights to Smt. Kalawati, which she could enjoy during her life time and not beyond that. 20. It is not argued before the Court that gift of limited interest in the property could not have been made. It leaves no manner of doubt that deed dated 10.01.1941 transferred only limited rights to Smt. Kalawati, which she could enjoy during her life time and not beyond that. 20. It is not argued before the Court that gift of limited interest in the property could not have been made. In the present case, the aforesaid deed clearly shows that it was only for the purpose of maintenance and there was a covenant in the deed restrictive of alienation. It was not gift of an absolute interest but of usufruct only. 21. A similar controversy was considered in Thakur Jagdeo Bakhsh Singh & Anr. Vs. Jwala Prasad & Ors. 1912 Indian Cases (Vol.XV) 244 and Judicial Commissioner, Oudh held : "We read it to be a deed of gift, but not a deed of gift by which full proprietary rights were transferred, and take it to be a deed of gift, by which the right to the usufruct of certain fields for the purpose of maintenance was assigned subject to two limitations, one of which was that the assignees should have no power to alienate the right assigned, and the other of which was that in the even of the failure of the issue of the assignees, the right of usufruct should revert to the grantor and his issue. Interpreting the document as we do, it is immaterial to enter into most of the points raised in the lower Courts and in argument in this appeal. Had the deed, in our opinion, transferred full proprietary right, there could have been no doubt as to the fact that the restrictions on alienation would have been null and void on the principles of equity and policy which are now embodied in the provisions of Act IV of 1882, and which had legal authority in Oudh before that Act was passed. If the transfer had been of complete proprietary right, a condition to restrain alienation would have been repugnant to the nature of the transaction, and would, according to recognized and binding principles of equity, have been inherently void and of no effect. But on the interpretation which we place on this document, which interpretation is in effect that it transferred the usufruct only, there is nothing repugnant in the imposition of these conditions which form an essential portion of the grant itself. But on the interpretation which we place on this document, which interpretation is in effect that it transferred the usufruct only, there is nothing repugnant in the imposition of these conditions which form an essential portion of the grant itself. We do not find that the conditions contained in this deed are in any way opposed to the principles of the Hindu Law that binds the parties, or to any statutory enactment or to the general principles of equity and good conscience. In the circumstances we consider that these limitations are good and binding, and are, therefore in accord with the contentions of the plaintiffs-appellants on this point." (emphasis added) 22. The question no.(i), therefore, is answered accordingly i.e. against defendant-appellant. 23. Once the first question is answered against appellant and in favour of plaintiff-respondent, I have no hesitation in observing that even the second question will have to be returned similarly for the reason that Smt. Kalawati could have transferred only such rights which she possessed i.e. to the extent she herself possessed in the property in dispute and not beyond that. Here Smt. Kalawati attempted to transfer disputed property to appellant-defendant no.2 by a gift deed dated 18.12.1967. Being a gift deed, transfer was not for consideration to defendant no.2 and Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882") does not come into picture. In fact, there was a restriction of transfer of disputed property by Smt. Kalawati in any manner. It is not the case where disputed property came in the hands of Smt. Kalawati as a part of her share from the property of her husband but property belonged to step-son of Smt. Kalawati. The said step-son i.e. plaintiff was owner of property in dispute and this fact was duly known and acknowledged by Sri Hansraj, father of plaintiff and husband of Smt. Kalawati, when gift deed with limited rights was executed by plaintiff in favour of Smt. Kalawati. The plaintiff honoured desire of his father by transferring limited rights in disputed property to Smt. Kalawati for the purpose of maintenance during her lifetime. Therefore, here is not a case where Kalawati can claim any individual right as a Hindu widow. An attempt to claim such rights by referring to provisions of Hindu Succession Act is misconceived. 24. The plaintiff honoured desire of his father by transferring limited rights in disputed property to Smt. Kalawati for the purpose of maintenance during her lifetime. Therefore, here is not a case where Kalawati can claim any individual right as a Hindu widow. An attempt to claim such rights by referring to provisions of Hindu Succession Act is misconceived. 24. In a case of transfer of certain rights, it is well settled that transferer can do so only to the extent he himself has such right and what he himself or herself does not possess, cannot be transferred. When Smt. Kalawati did not possess any right to alienate the property, question of her transfer of disputed property to the appellant could not have arise and if any such attempt was made, the same was wholly unauthorized, illegal and void ab initio. 25. Here is a case where property in question belonged to Sri Kundan Lal, son of Sri Hansraj and step-son of Smt. Kalawati. As already discussed above, it was transferred to Smt. Kalawati by Sri Kundan Lal with limited right for a limited period. There was a specific covenant in the deed that Smt. Kalawati shall not transfer property to anyone and after her death, it shall revert back to owner i.e. Sri Kundan Lal or his legal heirs. Smt. Kalawati, admittedly, died on 14.01.1971. The property in dispute, therefore, would have reverted back to plaintiff and defendant no.3 i.e. heirs of Sri Kundan Lal. The question no.(ii), therefore, is also answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against defendant no.2-appellant. 26. No other point has been argued. 27. Both the appeals lack merit and are dismissed with costs throughout.