JUDGMENT
V.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This second appeal is by Smt. Minhon, defendant in a suit instituted by her son Chuhru Ram, who is the respondent in this Court Apart from her, one Dalip Chand is also an appellant. He too was a defendant in the suit.
2. One Munshi Ram, husband of Smt. Minhon and father of plaintiff Chuhru, was occupancy tenant of 144 Kanals of land He died in the year 1940 leaving Smt. Minhon and Chuhru Ram as his heirs.
3. Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act contemplated succession to the entire occupancy tenancy land in favour of Chuhru as the sole male lineal descendant of Munshi Ram. Smt. Minhon was only entitled to a life estate under that provision. However, mutation was effected in favour both of Chuhru Ram and Smt. Minhon in respect of the land in equal shares. Chuhru Ram was a minor then.
4. After he attained majority, civil suit No. 355 of 1952 was instituted by Chuhru on Oct. 10, 1952, in the Court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Una, in which he sought a decree for possession of 72 Kanals of land which, according to him, had been erroneously mutated in favour of his mother. A compromise took place between the son and the mother in this suit. This was on Jan. 5, 1953. Under it, Smt. Minhon was given an
area of 43 Kanals 191/2 Marias of land, out of the total area of 144 Kanals, for her maintenance with life interest therein. With further details of the compromise we are not concerned in the present appeal.
5. Smt. Minhon made a gift of the aforesaid area of 43 Kanals 191/2 Marias of land in favour of her nephew, Dalip Chand, on Aug. 23, 1969. This led Chuhru to file another suit (being civil suit No. 326 of 1971), out of which arises the present second appeal.
6. In essence, Chuhru sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift aforesaid was void and did not adversely affect his right in 43 Kanals 191/2 Marias land in which his mother, Smt. Minhon, had only a life estate and had no right to make a gift in favour of any one.
7. The trial court decreed the suit on February 2, 1976. The defendants appealed. The learned District Judge who beared this appeal (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1976) dismissed it. Consequenty, the trial court’s decree stood affirmed. This was on May 17, 1978. Thereafter, the defendants approached this Court through the present appeal.
8. The only question which arises for determination in the appeal is whether Smt. Minhon was the full owner of 43 Kanals 191/2 Marias land and, therefore, entitled to make a gift thereof in favour of her nephew, Dalip Chand or else she had only a life estate therein. In other words, whether provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are attracted in the instant case or it is to be governed by Section 14(2) thereof.
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is in the following terms :–
” 14. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation. — In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in
lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) 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 the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
9. In case the rights acquired by Smt. Minhon are to be governed by Sub-section (1) of Section 14, she would be deemed to have been full owner of the aforesaid area of land and, thus, competent to make a gift thereof. In that event the view taken by the courts below would have to be held to be erroneous and the suit of the plaintiff liable to dismissal. In the circumstances, of the present case it is obvious that as a widow, Smt. Minhon had a right of maintenance which was a charge on the property of her husband, Munshi Ram. In other words, her right to maintenance was a pre-existing right on the date of enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. Such a right would bring the case within the ambit of Sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Law in this respect is more than settled. If reference is needed to precedents, it may be made to Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944; Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai, AIR 1979 SC 993; Nand Ram v. Vidya, ILR (1985) Him Pra 852 (DB); Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1492 and Smt. Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 1987 SC 2251.
10. In the aforesaid premises, the view taken by the Courts below is undoubtedly, erroneous in law. The appeal deserves to and succeeds. The suit giving rise to this appeal shall stand dismissed but I would leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.