SAHAB SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS.SHRI MADHO RAM Vs. PURAN GIR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS.SMT.GITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that requires determination in this appeal may be stated as follows : "Whether the deed of gift Ex. P -4 under which the properties were given to Smt Lachhmi predecessor in -interest of defendant -appellant before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for maintenance falls within section 14 (1) or is covered by section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -

(2.) Puran Gir alias Hira Lal -plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property against Sahab Singh and Jagta -defendants on the ground that the suit property which belonged to Gauri Gir was gifted by him to Smt. Lachhmi by way of gift on the basis of deed of gift dated 22 -11 -1907 registered on 5 -12 -1907. The said gift deed was conditional one and Smt. Lachhmi was conferred only a restricted estate. She had no right to alienate or gift the property. She contrary to the conditions contained in the gift on 6 -7 -1965 alienated the property to Sahab Singh which transaction was illegal and void and was not binding upon his rights and he was entitled to a decree of possession. The suit was contested by the defendants who alleged that Smt, Lachhmi was holder of life estate which had been enlarged under the provision of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1 56 and as such, she as full and absolute owner was competent to alienate the property and had rightly done so. Shri Jagta during the pendency of the litigation had admitted the claim of plaintiff. On the basis of this admission, decree for half share was granted The suit thereafter continued to be contested by Sahab Singh alone On the basis of evidence the Court found that as property was given to Lachhmi by her husband Gautam Gir prior to her marriage with him, therefore, sub -section (i) of section 14 of the Act was not applicable and it was sub -section (2) of section 14 which was applicable. On this basis the remaining suit of plaintiff with respect to half share of the property was also decreed.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved Sahab Singh preferred an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Second appeal was preferred by Sahab Singh but he died during the pendency of the appeal. Present appellants are his legal representatives. Puran Gir also died during pendency of the appeal. Respondents are his legal representatives. Jagta is proforma respondent.