The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on the premise that the present case is to govern by sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act as the source of right was companyferred for the first time on Smt.
Bhagwati Bai by virtue of the Will.
27, which was duly registered.
Bhagwati Bai.
During his life time Nanho Dubey executed a Will on 16.12.1935 in respect of his properties, including House No.
The said limited right was transformed into an absolute right by virtue of sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Act and as such she was legally companypetent to gift the property in favour of her daughter.
Bhagwati Bai in favour of her daughter is illegal and void.
On 28.3.62, Smt.
Nanho Dubey died in May, 1943.
27 in favour of her daughter who is the appellant before us.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant urged that once Smt.
Bhagwati Bai having possessed the house in lieu of her pre existing right she became the absolute owner under sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Gift Deed executed by her was valid.
27 only after the death of testators wife Smt.
After the death of the testetor, his widow Smt.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on the ground that Smt.
27 situate in Mohalla purani Kotwali, in the town of Jhansi.
It is at this stage, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration that the Gift Deed dated 28.3.62 executed by Smt.
Bhawwati Bai entered into the possession of the house for her life time.
It was the last Will of Nannhu Dubey whereunder Raghubir Prasad the respondent herein, was to be the owner of the House No.
Bhagwati Bai executed a Gift Deed in respect of House No.
Bhagwati Bai widow of Nanho Dubey had been given the right of possession in lieu of her maintenance, it was in recognition of her pre existing right.
The judgment of the First Appellate Court was affirmed by the High Court in the second appeal.
Bhagwati Bai, widow of Nanho Dubey was given only life interest in the said house in lieu of her maintenance.
N.KHARE, J. One Nanho Dubey, father of the appellant herein, was the owner in possession of House No.
