JUDGMENT
S. Shamsul Hasan, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff seeking effacement of a deed of conveyance made in favour of the sole defendant respondent, Kirpa Narain Singh, (since dead) by the wife of Bachchu Singh, Mt. Adhirajo Kuar. The plaintiff appellant is the nephew of Bachchu Singh.
2. The case of the plaintiff is based on a will executed by Bachchu Singh in the year 1950 in favour of Mt. Adhirajo Kuar and probated in the year 1966. By this will, according to the plaintiff appellant, Mt. Adhirajo Kuar was granted life interest in the property by the executant of the will and on her demise the property was to revert to the plaintiff appellant, Kedarnath Singh, the nephew of the executant of the will.
3. The defendant respondent (since dead) was the transferee from Mt. Adhirajo Kuar and based his claim and right created by the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which she became the absolute owner of the property.
4. The point of law framed is as follows : —
“Whether the court of appeal below has not committed an error of law in holding that properties bequeathed to Mt. Adhirajo Kuer under a will executed by her husband giving only a life interest will not control her right and limit it only to her life after the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly in view of the provisions under Section 14(2) of the said Act.”
5. In my view, there is no merit in this appeal for the following reasons. The appellant has placed reliance on Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (in short, ‘the Act’), which reads as follows : —
“Nothing contained in Sub-section (i) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
The words ‘any property acquired” indicate that the disability mentioned in the latter portion of the sub-section, i.e., “where the terms of gift….. prescribe a restricted estate in such-property” wholly relates only to rights flowing from the sources mentioned in the sub-section and will not affect the rights already perfected by the application of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, which reads as follows : —
“Any property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act shall be held by her full owner thereof, and not as a limited owner.”
6. The relevant dates on which certain events took place clearly answer this point against the defendant. The will was created in the year 1950. The husband of Mt. Adhirajo Kuer died in the year 1953. Consequently, Mt. Adhirajo Kuer obtained fife interest in the property of her deceased husband de
hors the will. When 1956 Act came into existence, she was already enjoying the life interest in the property, which automatically became absolute in terms of Section 14(1). All through these stages the will was dormant and unprobated, which event took place in the year 1966. In other words, the right of Mt. Adhirajo Kuer did not flow from the will at all but had already become absolute by operation of law, that is, Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(2) in terms applies only to the rights that flow from the sources mentioned in that sub-section, which could be a will also, but, it is well known that unless the will is probated, it does not create any right in the legatee of the will. In this case, therefore, no right flowed to Mt. Adhirajo Kuer from the will since, as I have said, she became entitled to absolute interest under the Act itself. The decision in Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944 (para 6) is a settler on this point.
7. All this apart, I have also examined the will itself. From reading of the will it cannot be said that a mere life interest was created in the property. In fact, she was allowed to alienate the property using the words ^^tk;t t:jr** in the will itself. There is a further recital that whatever is left over at the time of her death will revert to Kedarnath Singh. The statement that the residue of the property after the death of Mt. Adhirajo Kuer will revert to Kedarnath Singh clearly indicates that absolute interest was created. In fact, there is another aspect to this question. In 1950 even if this will had not be brought into existence, life interest of Mt. Adhirajo Kuer was preserved by the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937.
8. In the result, therefore, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-.