NARESH KUMARI Vs. SHAKSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in issue is, whether a female Hindu buying a house from a widow, a widow's estate prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act'), would become full owner of such house by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act In other words, it raises the question of interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2), as to, whether the transferee of such widow's estate, on the facts of this case, would fall under sub-section (1) or (2) of Sec-tion 14 In case it falls under sub-section (2), it would not mature her right in such property and thus it would revert back to the reversioners of the husband of the widow but if it falls under sub-section (1) she would become full owner of such property.

(2.) It is necessary to give some of the basic bare facts to appreciate and adjudicate the controversies of this case.

(3.) One Smt. Kesri, widow of Radhakishan, sold the house in dispute to Smt. Naresh Kumari, the appellant No. 1, on 29th January, 1954 for Rs. 3,000/-. Sakshi Lal and Ashwani Kumari, the respondents, are reversioners of Radhakishan. Earlier, the said reversioners challenged the said sale and sought declaration of the title over the said house, by filing a suit for declaration, challenging the claim of the appellants. Their case was that Smt. Kesri had only a limited interest in the property and thus she had no right to sell the property without any legal necessity. On 13th June, 1955, this suit was decreed by the trial Court holding that the transfer, by virtue of the said sale made by the widow was without any legal necessity and hence void against the reversioners interest. Aggrieved by this, Smt. Nirmal Kumari appealed before the first appellate Court. During its pendency, on 17th June, 1956 the aforesaid Hindu Succession Act came into force and on 22nd May, 1957 Smt. Kesri died. Finally, on 11th June, 1958, the appeal was also dismissed. After conclusion of the first leg of litigation, thereafter on 10th June, 1959, the reversioners of Radhakishan, the respondents before us, filed another suit for possession of the house in dispute on the basis of the decree as aforesaid. The defendants, the appellants before us, have contested the suit on the ground that on the date Smt. Kesri died, namely, 22nd May, 1957, since Hindu Succession Act came into force, Smt. Kesri became full owner of the said property and hence she being transferee from her and being in possession of this property became full owner. For such transfer she, in fact, invested Rs. 3,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. The appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra Division, thus the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The second appeal by the plaintiff was allowed by the High Court by setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellat Court and restoring the decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by this order, the present appellants-Smt. Naresh Kumari and others have filed this appeal.