He asked for a perpetual injunction restraining her from companymitting acts of waste and from alienating the suit properties.
It was also provided that the immovable properties allotted and awarded to the various parties would be individually and exclusively owned by them and each party would be entitled to take physical or companystructive possession of the properties allotted and awarded to his or her share.
This section reads 14 1 Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the companymencement of this Act, shall be held by her us full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 19, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No.
The award was made the rule of the companyrt.
As she was possessed of that property at the time the Act came into force she became full owner thereof by virtue of s. 14 1 of the Act even though previously she was a limited owner.
Kanso Devi pleading inter alia that she was a limited owner of the property which had been given to her by the award and that she was trying to alienate the same and companymit acts of waste to the prejudice of the reversions.
Badri Pershad, the appellant before us, filed a suit in August 1961 against the respondent Smt.
The first appellate companyrt and the High Court affirmed the decree of the trial companyrt.
251 D of 1964.
It was stated in the award that Smt.
20, Alipore Road, Delhi.
Under clause 6 of this award Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first four were by his first wife, whereas the 5th son Ishar Das was by his second wife Smt.
On the pleas of the parties the trial companyrt framed seven issues out of which the material one was No.
Kanso Devi was awarded three sets of property including bungalow No.
The respondent companytested the suit.
V. Gupte, K.L. Mehta, Yogeshwar Dayal, M.M. Kshatriya and G.S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
Kanso Devi Gajju Mal died in 1947 leaving him surviving the said five sons and Smt.
The facts may be briefly stated One Gajju Mal had five sons, Badri Pershad, Ganesh Dass, Devi Chand, Narain Das and Ishar Das.
T. Desai and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
Kanso Devi would have a widows estate in the properties awarded to her.
4 which was in these terms , Whether the defendant was awarded life estate only in the property in suit .9,, On April 17, 1963 the trial companyrt dismissed the suit holding that numberact of waste on the part of the respondent had been proved and that she had inherited the property under the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 and that the award had simply sepa rated her share by metes and bounds, and under s. 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act she had become full owner thereof.
Kanso Devi.
On August 5, 1950 Tulsi Ram Seth was ,appointed by the parties as an arbitrator for resolving certain differences which had arisen relating to partition of the urban immovable properties and other assets and liabilities left by Gajju Mal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench, Delhi .
1937 of 1966.
On October 31, 1950 the arbitrator gave his award.
