MOSTT. INGUAJI KUER Vs. SMT. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4th March, 1986, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 1043/71.

(2.) By the impugned Judgment, the order of the Court below dismissing the suit has been set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) had been decreed. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that one Dharichhan Missir had two wives, namely, Singari Kuer and Mukhrani Kuer (defendant No. 6). Singari pre-deceased her husband. Dharichhan Missir executed a Registered deed of Will on 10th Dec., 1945, making a disposition in favour of his second wife Mukhrani Kuer, granting her a life estate in all his movable and immovable properties and providing that after her death, his two daughters, namely, Maya Devi (plaintiff) and Lalita Devi (defendant No. 7) will succeed to the properties in equal share. Dharichhan Missir died soon the execution of the Will and his second wife Mukhrani Kuer (defendant No. 6), came in possession of the estate left behind by him on the basis of Letters of Administration issued in her favour. It appears that Mukhrani Kuer (defendant No. 6) executed two sale deeds on 13-3-64 and four sale deeds on 13-2-65 in favour of defendants Nos. I to 5 who are respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the instant appeal. It may here be noticed that Dharichhan Missir had one daughter namely Maya Devi (plaintiff) from his first wife Singari Kuer, while the second daughter Lalita Devi was born through his second wife Mukhrani Kuer. The aforesaid Lalita Devi was defendant No. 7 in the suit.

(3.) Maya Devi, one of the daughters of Dharichhan Missir filed a suit for declaration that the two sale-deeds dated 13-3-64 and four sale deeds dated 13-2-65 executed by defendant.No. 6 Mukhrani Kuer in favour of defendant Nos. I to 5 were not binding on her and on the heirs of Dharichhan Missir, and it was prayed that a declaration be granted that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 did not acquire any title on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds. The crucial question which arose for consideration was whether Mukhrani Kuer, defendant No. 6, a legatee under the Will, only acquired a life estate, or whether the life estate conferred on her by Will became an absolute estate by operation of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter refers to as he Act'). The trial Court dismissed the suit holding,that Mukhrani Kuer (defendant No. 6) became the absolute owner of the properties by operation of Sec. 14(1) of the Act and therefore, she was competent to sell the properties in question in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5.