BLANDA Vs. DUNI CHAND KHAZANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the interpretation of Section 14 (2) of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, is involved.

(2.) THE ]and in dispute was held by Smt. Rohban at the time when the Hindu succession Act came into force. She had got this land by gift from her father-inlaw. The gift was an oral gift and its terms are recorded in the mutation (Exhibit P. 2) that followed. It is stated in this mutation that the land was given to her for her maintenance and she had no right to sell or mortgage the same. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she gifted this land to the defendants. This led to the present suit by the collaterals of her father-in-law on the ground that she had no right to gift this property to the defendants in view of the terms of the gift because she merely held a limited estate in the donated property. The defence was that by reason of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she had become the absolute owner of the donated property and, therefore, could make a valid gift. The trial Court found for the collaterals and held that she held merely restricted estate and, therefore, decreed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge bas taken a contrary view and has reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE first question that arises for determination is as to what is the nature of the estate the lady got from her father-in-law. Did she get a full estate or a limited estate in that property? For that we have to refer to the mutation of gift wherein the terms are recorded. This gift came about when Hazari was selling the property out and out. The lady objected. There was a compromise and in that compromise she was given the suit property for her maintenance with a further rider added that she could not sell or mortgage the same. To my mind this clearly indicates that she was being given merely a limited estate and not a full estate. The estate that was given to her was given in lieu of maintenance and she was debarred from selling or mortgaging it, which she could have otherwise done in case of a valid necessity. Therefore, it must be held that she held a limited estate in the suit property before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act.