RAM KALI Vs. CHOUDHRI AJIT SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this civil appeal can be framed as follows:

(2.) It is surprising that in spite of a three-Judge Bench judgment of this court in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99 clearly explaining in detail the scope and ambit of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act, 1956, the High Court without referring to that case has reached a palpably erroneous conclusion on the scope of Section 14 (1) of the said Act.

(3.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by one Ch. Rajendra Shankar, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein, seeking a declaration that the sale in favour of the appellant herein will not bind him as he was the absolute owner of the suit house. One Kamlawati, widowed daughter-in-law of Babu Ram Ratanlal, sold the suit house to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 18-10-1965 for a valid consideration. That sale was challenged by Rajendra Shankar, grandson of Babu Ram Ratanlal through his daughter, (predecessor-in-title of the respondents) on the ground that his grandfather by the Will dated 23-12-1920 registered on 5-1-1921 had given only a limited interest in the suit house to the said Kamlawati and, therefore, the sale will not be binding on him after the death of the said kamlawati. Ch. Rajendra Shankar died pending suit. His legal representatives continued the suit.