SMT. SHARBATI DEVI Vs. PT. HIRALAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the point which is to fie decided in this appeal it is necessary to state the facts shortly. One Din Dayal, who was a lawyer, had two wives, Smt. Mathri and Smt. Basantl. From Smt. Mathri he had a son, Bhikan Lal, who died in 191/leaving a widow Mst. Sharbati Devi who is Defendant No. 1 in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Smt. Basanti was the other wife of Din Dayal from whom he had a son, Hira Lal, who is the Plaintiff. Din Dayal died in the year 1938 and on 31st December 1938 his properties were mutated half and half in favour of Mst. Sharbati Devi and Hira Lal who was minor at that time Mst. Sharbati Devi remained in possession of the properties which had been mutated in her favour.

(2.) MR . Shamair Chand, who appears for the Defendant -Appellant, contends that the property in dispute had been acquired before the commencement of the Act after the death of Din Dayal by the Appellant in lieu of maintenance and, therefore, it was held by her as full owner by virtue of Section 14(1) at the time when she alienated it in favour of Khem Ram. It is pointed out that if the female Hindu has already acquired property in that manner, then Sub -section (2) of Section 14 will have no application because according to the express language employed therein it can govern only such cases where property has been acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a Civil Court, etc. According to Mr. Shamair Ghana, this means that Sub -section (2) can come into operation only it acquisition in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time without there being any pre -existing right in the female Hindu who is in possession of the property. My attention has been invited to a decision or Gurudev Singh J. In Dhanna Singh v. Smt Autar kaur Second Appeal No. 292 of 1961 (Punj) against which Utters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 1962 was dismissed in which after referring to Section 14(2) it has been observed is follows:

(3.) In Sasadhar Chandra Day v. Smt. Tara Sundari Dasi, All 1962 Cal 438, P.C. Mallick J, was of the view that the language used in Sub -section (2) of Section 14 indicates that the word 'acquired' will have a restricted meaning. It was not intended to have a meaning wider than its ordinary meaning. A property is said to be acquired when prior to the acquisition the person acquiring it had no interest in the property.