Holding

The testator intended to confer absolute ownership on his wife, and under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act she is the absolute owner, rendering the earlier life‑estate finding non‑binding.

Summary

Durga Prasad Bagla executed a 1917 Will bequeathing all his estate to his third wife, Mst. Durgi, using the term "puree malik" indicating absolute ownership. After Durga's death, Durgi adopted Kanhaiya Lal, whose later suit sought possession of the property and declared Durgi's subsequent Will and settlement deed in favour of Brahma Vart Sanatan void. The trial court held Durgi possessed only a life estate under the Will and that the earlier High Court decision barred re‑litigation of the adoption issue, but affirmed that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act would render any limited estate into absolute ownership. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the testator's intention, the meaning of "puree malik", and the effect of Section 14(1), concluding that the Will granted Durgi absolute ownership irrespective of any presumption of a life interest. Even assuming a life estate, Section 14(1) elevates it to absolute ownership, making the earlier life‑estate finding non‑binding and not res judicata. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the trial and High Court judgments, and dismissed the suit filed by the respondents. The decision clarifies the construction of wills and the operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Issues considered

Whether the 1917 Will gave Mst. Durgi absolute ownership or only a life interest in the property.
Whether the earlier High Court decision on the life estate creates a bar of res judicata for the present suit.
Whether Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act converts a limited estate into absolute ownership for a Hindu widow.
The proper interpretation of the term "puree malik" in the Will.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1), s. 14(2)

Subjects

Hindu Succession ActSection 14Will interpretationAbsolute ownershipLife estateRes judicataAdoptionProperty lawHindu law

Judgment

THE BRAHMA VART SANATAN A
v.
KANHYALAL BAGLA AND OTHERS

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Hindu Law:

Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14-Property o.f female Hindu to
be her absolute property-Will executed by testator in favour of his w(fe-
lntention of testator and specific words used in the Will makes it clear that
c
absolute right of ownership o.f his properties bequeathed to his wife-W(fe
executes Will in favour o.f third person-Adopted son claims possession o.f
properties and declaration that Will executed by his mother is null and void-
Trial Court held that the mother had only life estate under the Will and son will
have no right to obtain possession of the estate of the mother during her l{fe D
time-High Court confirmed the order-On appeal, held even presuming that ·
mother had l(fe estate, she becomes absolute owner of the property under
Section 14(1 ).

Wills:
E
Interpretation o.f-To be read as whole to gather intention o.f the testator.

Words and Phrases:

'Puree Malik'-Meaning o.f.
' F
Testator-husband executed a Will in favour of his wife. After the
testator's death his wife adopted respondent No. 1. After few years of
adoption R-1 initiated proceedings through his natural father for declaration
that he was adopted son and also for possession over the disputed properties.
Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, High Court upheld the decision of
Trial Court to the extent that R-1 was the adopted son but set aside the
G
decision of trial court for handing over the possession of the suit premises.
Subsequently, the mother executed a Will and a settlement deed in favour
of the appellant. After her death R-1 filed another suit for possession and
for declaration that Will and settlement deed executed by the mother are
null and void. Trial Court held that the mother had only life estate under H
311
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A the Will and it was not enlarged under Section 14(1) of tlte Hindu Succession
Act into an absolute estate. High Court confirmed the same. Hence the
present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD : 1.1. The intention of the testator and the specific words used
in the Will makes it clear that the executant of the Will was to bequeath
absolute right of ownership of his properties to his wife. [316-C; D]

1.2. After the death of her husband she would have life interest even
without Will being executed in her favour. In view of Section 14(1) of the
C Hindu Succession Act, she would be the absolute owner of the said property
and in such cases, exception provided under Section 14(2) of the Act would
· not be applicable and presuming that she was having limited estate, she
became absolute owner of the said property under Section 14(1) of the Act.
[321-A-B; 322-A-B]

D Thota Sesharathamma and Am: v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by Lrs.,
[1991] 4 SCC 3.12 and Beni Bai (Smt.) v. Raghubir Prasad, [1999] 3 SCC
234, relied on.

Durgi v. Kanhai]a Lal, AIR (1927) Allahabad 387, disapproved•.

E 2. In the Will, the expression used is 'puree malik' i.e. absolute owner
and the expression 'Malik' has a well-known connotation and has been
held as "apt to describe a owner possessed of full proprietary rights,
including a full right of alienation, unless there is something in the context
or in surrounding circumstances to indicate that such full proprietary
rights were not intended to be conferred". [317-C; D] ,
F
Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das, [1963] Supp. (2) SCR 834, relied on.

3. While interpreting the Wills, it is settled law to get at the intention
of the testator by reading the Will as a whole; if possible such construction
as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would
G render any of the expression inoperative is to be accepted. Further the
words occurring more than once in a Will are to be presumed to be used
always in the same sense unless contrary intention appears from the Will.
The Court may also consider the circumstances under which the testator
makes his Will such as the state of his property, or his family and the like.
H Further in the matter of construction of a Will, authorities or precedents
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALALBAGLA [SHAH, J.] 313
would. be of no help as each Will is to be construed in its own terms and in A
the setting in which the clauses occur. [316-G; H; 317-A; BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 916 of 1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.83 of the Allahabad High
Court in F.A. No. 276 of 1967. B

V.K.S. Chaudhary, Shibsankar Sarkar, Gopishyam Nigam, Anish Kumar
Gupta, Shirish Kumar Mishra, S.S. Khanduja, P.K. Chakravarti, Sallauddin,
A.S. Bhasme, Saurabh Mishra, Manoj K. Mishra, Sanjay K. Visen and N.S.
Bisht for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. By judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1983 passed
in First Appeal No.276 of 1967, the High Court of Allahabad confirmed the
judgment and decree dated 3.7.1967 passed by the Ilnd Additional Civil Judge,
Kanpur in Original Suit No.66 of 1960. D

After dismissing the appeal, the High Court vide its order dated 18th
November, 1983 granted certificate of leave to appeal to this Court.

The dispute in this appeal is with regard to properties owned by one
Durga Prasad Bagla who was owner of considerable property in the City of E
Kanpur and carried business in the names of Mis Durga Prasad Bagla, Kanpur
and Mis Harmukh Rai Munna Lal, Delhi. Durga Prasad had third wife Mst.
Durgi and that they were having no child. On 01.11.1917, he executed a Will
in favour ofMst. Durgi. He died on 09.9.1918 and thereafter on 21st December
1918, Mst. Durgi adopted deceased Kanhaiya Lal Bagla (plaintiff no.I) and F
executed an adoption deed also. It appears that there were differences after
adoption and deceased Kanhaiya Lal Bagla, minor through guardian, natural
father filed Original Suit No.232 of 1924 against Mst. Durgi and another in the
Court of Civil Judge, Kanpur for declaration that he was the adopted son and
also for possession over the disputed properties. The suit was decreed by the
trial court. Against that Mst. Durgi preferred first appeal No.502 of 1925 before G
the High Court of Allahabad. That appeal was allowed and the Court held as
under: -

"We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the
Court below, grant the plaintiff a declaration that he is the validly H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A adopted son of Du~ga Prasad but that the estate created under the Will,
dated the 1st of November, 1917, in favour of Mst. Durgi holds good
and the plaintiff will have no right to obtain possession of the estate
of the deceased during her lifetime."

Thereafter, on 1.11.1956, Durgi executed a Will (Ex.A.13) in favour of
B defendant no. I Brahma Vart Sanatan Dharm Mahamandal, Kanpur in respect
of properties Nos.I and 2 of Schedule 'C' to the plaint. On 31.10.1958 she
executed a settlement deed (Ex.A.14) in favour of defendant no.1. On 8.11.1958
she also executed a gift deed Ex.Q.I in favour of defendant no.3 Murari Lal
Dwivedi whom she treated as Dharm Putra. It is stated that Mst. Durgi died on
c night between l l/12th February, 1960.

It is alleged that plaintiff no.1 Kanhaiya Lal Bagla sold seven annas share
in the disputed property to plaintiff no.2 Man Mohan Shukla vide sale deed
Ex.27. Thereafter, on 20.4.1960 plaintiffs (Kanhaiya Lal and Man Mohan) filed
the present suit for possession of the properties and for a declaration that the
D Will, gift and settlement deeds executed by Mst. Durgi are null and void and
that the plaintiffs are owners of the properties of Schedule 'C' of the plaint and
for recovery of mesne profits and possession of the properties mentioned in
Schedule 'A' & 'B' of the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendants and
it was contended that adoption deed was fraudulently obtained by the natural
E father of Kanhaiya Lal Bagla and collaterals of Durga Prasad Bagla. It was also
stated that Mst. Durgi became absolute owner of the property in terms of the
Will executed by Durga Prasad and the adoption in any case would not divest
her of the said property. It was also contended that considering the finding
given by the High Court in previous proceedings, there was no question of suit
or issue being barred by res judicata. In the alternative, it was stated that if it
F is held that she was limited owner as alleged, she became absolute owner under
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Trial Court upheld the contention raised by the plaintiffs and held
that there will be bar of res judicata with regard to validity of adoption in view
of the earlier litigation; Mst. Durgi had only life estate under the Will and it
G
was not enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act into an
absolute estate. The court disbelieved the plaintiffs' version that the Will and
the settlement deed were not executed by Mst. Durgi voluntarily or were
obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. It was also held that
gift deed in favour of defendant no.3 Murali Lal Dwivedi was obtained under
H undue influence. In appeal, the High Court considered the facts of the previous
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALAL BAGLA [SHAH, J.] 315
litigation between the parties and held that in a previous suit between the A
parties the issue was - as to whether she had an absolute estate under the Will;
that she continued to be the owner of the property in the suit or the plaintiffs
became the owner after adoption" and that issue was decided against her. The
Court, therefore, held that decision in earlier First Appeal No.502/25 operates
as res-judicata and it was not open to the Court to adjudge the same again. The
B
Court further held that Mst. Durgi would not get benefit of Section 14(1) of
the Hindu Succession Act.

In this appeal, three questions are required to be determined:

(a) Whether under the Will, Mst. Durgi got absolute ownership C
[~ ~] of the property bequeathed or whether she got limited
estate?

(b) What is the effect of the decision rendered between parties by the
Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 502 of 1925? and,
D
(c) What is barred by res judicata?

For deciding the first question, that is, whether under the Will Mst. Durgi
got absolute ownership of the property or only a limited estate, we would refer
to the relevant parts of the Will made by the deceased Durga Prasad Bagla,
which are as 1,mder: - E

I bequeath 'absolutely all my estate to my wife' Mst. Durgi D/o
late Lala Harnarayan Das by caste Vaish Agrawal previously r/o
Bhivani, District Hissar and at present residing in city of Kanpur and F
provide as under: -

Thirdly- All my remaining estate after defraying the funeral
expenses, 'will vest absolutely in my w(fe',

Mst. Durgi, as aforesaid and she will also have the power G
to continue or to discontinue my business shops and commission
agency in consultation with and with the approval of my family in
which I have been adopted and she will have the right to close the
business, shop and commission agency in the same manner as I am
entitled. H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Fourthly-She will have the right in consultation with the member
of the family in which I have been adopted, to spend the whole money
and no one will have any right to question the same and '.further she
will have the right to sell and bequeath by Will etc.the whole property'
in consultation with the family members in which, I have been adopted
and further, I confer on her the right to adopt a son of any person, she
B
likes, in consultation of 'biradari' in which I have been adopted and
after the death of the lady aforementioned, the adopted son may
become the owner (malik ho sakta hai) but during the life time of the
lady, the adopted son will have no rights."

C Aforesaid Will makes it abundantly clear that by unambiguous term
absolute ownership of the properties was bequeathed to Mst. Durgi by her
husband Durga Prasad. Repeatedly in the Will, it has been made clear that the
in ten.ti on of the executant of the Will was to bequeath absolute right of ownership
of his properties to his wife.
D
However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in paragraph
(4) of the Will, it has been provided that after the death of the testator, it would
be open to his widow to adopt a son and in such eventuality, adopted son may
become the owner after the death of the lady. In our view, these words in no
way restrict or curtail the absolute ownership rights of Mst. Durgi. They only
E provide that after her death, in case of adoption of a son by hey, the adopted
son may get the said property. But, rights of Mst. Durgi to deal with the
property as an absolute owner .and to transfer or bequeath the same are not
affected or restricted. This has been made clear stating that she will have the
right to spend the whole money and no one will have the right to question the
F same and further she wi:l have the right to sell and bequeath by way of Will
etc. the whole property. Result is, if any property remains after the death of Bai
Durgi which she has not transferred or bequeathed, her adopted son would get
right over the same.

Further, in interpreting the Wills, it is settled law to get at the intention
G of the testator by reading the Will as a whole; if possible such construction as
would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render
any of the expression inoperative is to be accepted. Another rule which may
be useful in context of the Will is that the words occurring more than once in
a Will are to be presumed to be used always in the same sense unless contrary
H intention appears from the Will. The Court may also consider the circumstances
..
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALAL BAGLA [SHAH, J.] 317
under which the testator makes his Will such as the state of his property, or his A
family and the like. [Re.: Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das, [1963] Supp 2 SCR
834.

Further, in the matter of construction of a Will, authorities or precedents
would be of no help as each Will is to be construed in its own terms and in
the setting in which the clauses occur. In the present case, the circumstances B
under which the Will was executed by the testator could be gathered from the
Will itself. The testator himself was adopted son. He married thrice and was
suffering from some ailment and fever. Third wife was minor and young having
no child. To protect her interest from other members of the family, he bequeathed
his entire property in her favour. He repeatedly mentioned and made it crystal C
clear that he was bequeathing absolute ownership of his property to his wife.
Only suggestion which was made to his wife was to consult his other family
members before disposing of the property. In the Will, the expression used is
['@ l11fficf; or 'puree malik'] absolute owner and the expression 'Malik' has a
well-known connotation and has been held as "apt to describe a owner possessed
of full proprietary rights, including a full right of alienation, unless there is D
something in the context or in surrounding circumstances to indicate that such
full proprietary rights were not intended to be conferred". [Re. Pearey Lal
(supra)]. Hence, considering the intention of the testator and the specific words
used in the Will, it "'ould be difficult to hold that the Will conferred limited
estate on Mst. Durgi. E
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Allahabad High Court between the same parties in the earlier
proceedings. Reported as Durgi v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR (1927) Allahabad 387.
It is required to be understood that earlier proceedings were initiated by plaintiff
Kanhaiya Lal within few years of his adoption through his guardian, natural F
father. That suit was filed for a declaration that he was validly adopted son and
was entitled to possession of the property bequeathed in favour of Mst. Durgi.
It was decreed by the trial Court and hence, Mst. Durgi preferred first appeal
before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the judgment rendered by
the trial court to the extent that Kanhaiya Lal was validly adopted son of Mst. G
Durgi and set aside the judgment of the trial court for handing over possession
of the suit premises. The Court held (at page 389) as under: -

"The document is called a Will by the testator himself. We have
no doubt in our mind that it was not merely an ordinary Hindu widow's
estate that was intended to be conferred on Mst. Durgi. On the other H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A hand, the testator expressly stated that she should be absolute owner
of the entire estate le.ft by him and that she should have power to spend
the whole of the money, that is to say, the capital, with the consent of
his family and also she should have power to make a sale or gift with
the consent of his family. Obviously these are not powers which can
be ordinarily exercised by a Hindu widow, who has no power to
B
alienate the estate without legal necessity."

Thereafter the Court negatived the contention that the testator had no
power to execute the Will or that it is not binding to subsequently adopted son
and, therefore, the Court set aside the finding given by the trial court that the
C disposition made by Durga Prasad was null and void.

The Court also held that

"In our opinion the testator had intended to confer on her an
absolute estate, with this condition: that in case she exercised the
D power to adopt a boy her interest would be cut down to a life-interest
with remainder over to the adopted son. This undoubtedly was the
intention of the testator. Under this will therefore a life-estate at least
was intended to be created in favour of the widow."

Thereafter the Court partly allowed the appeal and set :>.~ide the decree
E of the trial court, granted the plaintiff a declaration that he was a validly
adopted son of Durga Prasad, but that the life estate created under the Will
dated 1st November 1917 in favour of Mst. Durgi holds good and the plaintiff
will have no right to obtain possession of the estate of the deceased during her
life time.
F
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid finding
given by the High Court that under the Will, life estate was created in favour
of Mst. Durgi is binding between the parties. As against this, learned counsel
for the appellant pointed out that the High Court has specifically held that under
the Will absolute ownership of the entire estate left by the testator is given to
G her and that she was having power to sell or gift away the property. Therefore,
the finding whiCh is given in the alternative is not final binding adjudication
between the parties.

In view of these submissions, the next question which is required to be
H considered is whether the :;tforesaid finding is binding between the parties and
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALAL BAGLA [SHAH, J.] 319
the issue is barred by res judicata. For this purpose, we would refer to the A
relevant issues raised by the trial Court. They are as under : -

"3. (B) Is the plea regarding factum and validity of adoption

- barred by resjudicata in view of the decision in suit No. 232/1924 and
appeal No. 502/1925?
B
4. (A) Had Durgawati only a life interest under the Will of Durga
Prasad? What is the effect of the above referredjudgments on this
point?"

With regard to the factuin and validity of adoption, the trial Court held
that the issue was barred by res judicata in view of the decision rendered in C
First Appeal No. 502 of 1925. It is to be stated that with regard to the contention
whether Mst. Durgi was having life interest or absolute ownership, the trial
court has not raised issue of res judicata and rightly so because that was not
the question which was required to be decided in the previous suit. On issue
~ ...> No. 4 (A) raised by it, the court held that the decision in the previous case D
limiting the interest of the widow to a life estate might not have the force of
res judicata in the present suit, yet the interpretation put by the High Court on
the Will of Durga Prasad could not be ignored and was binding on the Court.
However, without consideriqg this aspect, the High Court referred to issue No.
6 quoted below "''hich was raised in the previous proceedings.
E
"Is the defenda1ll full owner of the property of her late husband
by virtue of his Will dated the 1st November, 1917? If so, can the
plaintiff claim the property in question?"

The High Court, therefore, held that in the previous proceedings, the
Court was called upon to decide defendant's (Mst. Durgi's) main plea that she F
had an absolute estate under the Will and also the alternative plea that she had
a life estate and ~)le could not be dispossessed. The Court negatived the
contention that the plea that suit fo~ possessfon would have failed on the finding
that she had a life estate and it was as such not necessary to go into the question
as to whether she had an absolute estate was without any merit because it is G
the duty of the courts of law to record specific and clear cut finding on all points
of law raised before them. The Court, therefore, rejected the plea that the
observations of the High Court in earlier proceedings were mere obiter dicta
and consequently not binding.

On the question of res judicata, we would only refer to the decision H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A rendered by this Court in Sajjadanashin Sayed MD. B.E. EDR. (D) by LRs. v.
Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors., [2000] 3 SCC 350. The Court in paragraph
12 observed as under:-

"It will be noticed that the words used in Section 11 CPC are
"directly and substantially in issue". If the matter was in issue directly
·s and substantially in a prior litigation and decided against a party then
the decision would be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Judicial
1·'
decisions have however held that if a matter was only "collaterally or
incidentally" in issue and decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding
therein would not ordinarily be res judicata in a latter proceeding
c where the matter is directly and substantially in issue."

In paragraph 18, the Court has further considered in which case, it could
.be said that the issue was directly ~nd substantially raised and decided and held
as under: -

D "In India, Mulla has referred to similar tests (Mulla, 15th Edn:, p.
104). The learned au~hor says: a matter in respect of which relief is
claimed in an earlier suit can be said to be generally a matter "directly
and substantially" in issue but it does not mean that if the matter is one
in respect of which no relief is sought it is not directly or substantially
in issue. It may or may not be. It is possible that it was '\Erectly and
E substantially" in issue and it may also be possible that it was only
collaterally or incidentally in issue, depending upon the facts of the
case. The· question arises as to what is the test for deciding into which
category a case falls? One test is that if the issue was "necessary" to
be decided for adjudicating on the principal i~sue and was decided, it
F would have to be treated as "directly and substantially" in issue and
if it is clear that the judgment was in fact based upon that decision, then
a
it would be res judicata in latt~r case (Mulla p. 104). One has to
examine the plaint, the written statement, the issues and the judgment
to find out if the matter was directly and substantially in issue (lshwer
Singh v. Sarwan Singh, AIR (1965) SC 948) and (Syed Mohd. Salic
G
Labhai v. Mohd. Han(fa, {1976] 4 SCC 780). We are of the view that
the above summary in Mulla is a correct statement of the law."

In the present matter, even though the trial court has considered this
aspect in detail, the High Court has not dealt with it. However, it would not
.H be necessary to deal with the same in detail in view of Section 14 of the Hindu

I
1

I
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALAL BAGLA [SHAH, J.] 321

Succession Act, 1956. Admittedly, deceased Mst. Durgi was third wife of A
testator and was young and minor at the relevant time. Testator was not
having any other heir except his wife Mst. Durgi. Mst. Durgi was entitled to

-
maintenance from her husband and from his property. So, after the death of her
husband she would have life interest even without Will being executed in her
favour. In view of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, she would be
B
absolute owner of the said property. In such cases, exception provided under
Section 14(2) of the Act would not be applicable. Law on this question is well
settled and we would only refer to the dec"ision in Thota Sesharathamma and
Am: v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) By LRs., [1991) 4 SCC 312, wherein this
Court held as under : -
c
"Section 14(2) of the Act is in the nature of a proviso or an
exception to Section 14 and comes into operation only if acquisition
in any of the methods indicated therein is made for the first time
without there being any pre-existing right in the female Hindu to the
property. ~f the case falls under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the
Act then thefemale Hindu shall be held to be full owner of the property D
and sub-section (2) of Section 14 will only apply where the property
is acquired without there being any pre-existing right of the female
Hindu in such property. This view lends support to the object of the
section which was to remove the disability on women imposed by law
and to achieve a social purpose by bringing about change in the social E
and economic position of women in Hindu Society.

.... .. ...... ..If the finding is positive her limited estate, though created
with restrictive covenants in instrument or an omission to expressly so
mention in full particulars thereof in the instrument in that regard are
of little consequence. Her limited estate gets blossomed into full F
ownership under Section 14(1) with a right to bequeath, gift over,
alienate or to deal in any manner recognised by law. If on the other
hand the Hindu female acquires for the first time the title therein as a
grant with restrictive estate under the instrument with no pre-existing

- title or right, sub-section (2) of Section 14 gets attracted and the
restrictive covenants contained in the instrument would bind her. She G
remains to be a limited owner in terms thereof. The subsequent alienee
or transferee acquires no higher right thereunder than the legatee etc.
The reversioner to the last male holder is not bound by such transfer
and is entitled to succeed to the estate, on her demise, in terms of the
instrument." H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Same view i:; taken in Beni Bai (Smt.) v. Raghubir Prasad,
[ 1999] 3 SCC 234. Hence, presuming that Mst. Durgi was having
limited estate, she became absolute owner of the said property under
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree
-
B passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside. The suit filed by the respondents is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs all throughout.

NJ.. Appeal allowed.

)

I
,
.
I

I