JUDGMENT
S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. This is defendant’s second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Bharatpur by which he had dismissed the appeal filed by Chameli against the judgment and decree of Munsiff Bayana and the appeal filed by Shri Handoo was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
2. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 brought the present suit for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of a portion of a house situated at Bayana on the allegations that the said house belonged to his father Kishorilal who died on 27th April, 1956. Since he is the only heir of his father, he becomes the owner of the suit property after the death of his father Kishorilal. It has been further alleged in the plaint that Chameli, appellant No. 1 who is the grand mother of the plaintiff and widow of Kanhaiyalal was staying in the suit property since the time of his father and she started claiming to be the owner of the property w.e.f. 5-12-1962 when she allegedly executed a will in favour of the respondent No. 2 who was impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit and she had permitted other respondents to live in the said house. Since these respondents appellants did not allow him to enter the house and since they were damaging the property and reducing its value, he filed this suit seeking for declaration for the will to be of no effect. The suit was contested by the respondents. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement and defendant No. 3 filed a separate similar written statement. The defence taken was that defendant No. 1 Smt. Chameli was staying in a portion of the suit property consisting of one Kotha and a Tibara in front of it since the time of death of her husband. It has been further asserted in the written statement that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 acquired title by adverse possession on the open land on the east of the said property as their father Shankarlal had occupied the said open land since last 25 years and has constructed building thereon and the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have been residing in the said property. It has been further asserted that she has become owner of the portion consisting of one Kotha and Tibara in front of this and the suit is barred by time. It has also been stated that she had filed a suit for maintenance against the plaintiff and a decree for maintenance was also granted in her favour and the same was being executed against the plaintiff and hence he has filed the suit to harass defendant No. 1 on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 20 issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and held that plaintiff was entitled for declaration of half share of the disputed property. Against the said judgment of the trial Court, both the parties filed appeals and the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by Smt. Chameli, defendant No. 1 and allowed the appeal filed by Handoo and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in toto and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property and defendant No. 1 had no right to transfer the suit property in any manner and further the plaintiff was entitled to recover the possession from the defendants and defendant No. 1 was restrained from alienating or transferring the possession of the property to any one. Against this judgment and decree, the present appeal was filed by Smt. Chameli and other defendants.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. 5 Girraj Prasad who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 was transferred as an appellant. After the death of Smt. Chameli, since her legal representatives were already on record, the name of Smt. Chameli has been deleted from the array of appellants. Thereafter, Girraj Prasad has also expired and his L. Rs. have come on record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that since Smt. Chameli was in occupation and staying in a portion of the property as she had a right of residence and maintenance. She had become a full owner in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. He has placed reliance on Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturu Swami v. Setra Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577, Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944, Mangal Singh v. Smt. Rattno, AIR 1967 SC 1786, Partap Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1696 and Mst. Gaumati v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1974 Raj 147.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has also very vehemently supported the judgment of the First Appellate Court and has submitted that since Smt. Chameli had obtained, a decree for maintenance in her favour and she was executing the said decree. She cannot be said to have acquired the property in her possession in view of maintenance. Therefore, she cannot acquire full ownership’s right with regard to the said property. Moreover, the finding of the First Appellate Court with regard to the other part of the property that the defendants have not become owner by adverse possession is a concurrent finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in second appeal. He has placed reliance on Mst. Mohari v. Mst. Chukli, AIR 1960 Raj 82, Kankoo v. Pukhraj, 1961 Raj LW 602, Tej Singh v. Hastiraal, AIR 1972 Raj 191, Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR 1966 SC 1879 and Narayano v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 Bom 271.
6. I have carefully gone through the record of the case as also judgments of the two courts below and have also considered the submission made before me and the authority cited at the bar.-It is an admitted fact that Smt. Chameli has been residing in a portion of the suit property consisting of one Kotha and a Tibara in front of it along with her husband and after the death of her husband she remained to continue to reside in that portion. It is also not disputed that Kishori Lal died on 27th April, 1956 and plaintiff respondent No. 1 is the only heir of Shri Kishori Lal. It is also not disputed that Smt. Chameli filed a suit for maintenance and the same was decreed in her favour and a decree for maintenance was passed and she had put the same for execution. Merely because Smt. Chameli had been residing in the portion of the house she cannot become the full owner. Before becoming a full owner Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was necessary that she must have acquired the property either by inheritance or devise or on a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift from any person. There is no evidence on record that Smt. Chameli acquired the property in any of these manners (quoted above) unless she was a limited owner, she could not have become a full owner. By mere residing along with her husband or continue to reside after the death of her husband Smt. Chameli cannot be said to have acquired the said property as envisaged by Section 14 of the Act. There is no evidence to show that she had acquired this property in execution of decree for maintenance nor it has been pleaded. As such I am of the view that she had not become the full owner of the property and, therefore, she had no right to transfer or will away the property to other defendants. Finding that the defendants have not become owner by adverse possession being a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below it is not open for me to interfere with that finding in second appeal- No other point was pressed before me. As such I do not find any force in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.