Nand Ram vs Mst. Vidya

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a Plaintiff''s second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration.

One Khemi Ram died on September 30, 1932, leaving behind three widows and a daughter Vidya. The widows were Khunkhi, Nengu and Durga. Vidya is the daughter of Nengu. On Khemi Ram''s death a part of his property was mutated in the names of his three widows. We are not concerned with the remaining part of the property. Khunkhi died in 1953 and her interest in the property develoved in equal shares on the surviving widows Durga and Nengu. Nengu died in 1960 and Vidya succeeded to her share in the entire property. On February 27, 1965, Durga, the sole surviving widow executed a will in favour of Nand Ram in respect of the property which remained to her share. Nand Ram is the son of Durga by a former husband. Durga died on March 8, 1965. Nand Ram filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that he is entitled to Durga''s property on the basis of the will mentioned above and is entitled to remain in possession thereof.

The suit was contested by Vidya. She asserted that shortly before his death Khemi Ram had executed a will making her owner of the property but giving the property to the three widows as limited owners for their maintenance without any right of alienation and, therefore, it was pleaded that any will made by Durga could have no legal effect.

The learned Subordinate Judge, Kulu, held that the will executed by Khemi Ram was valid but because of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Durga, the sole surviving widow, had become full owner of the property in her possession u/s 14(1) of the Act. Accordingly the decreed the suit.

On appeal by Vidya, the learned District Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahaul and Spiti, has held that the will executed by Khemi Ram is a genuine document but on the view that Durga was a limited owner of the land notwithstanding the Hindu Succession Act, he has found that the will was invalid.

And now Nand Ram has filed the second appeal.

Two points have been urged before me on behalf of the Appellant. The first is that the will is not a genuine document. It is urged that material evidence has not been considered by the lower Appellate court when holding to the contrary. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it seems to me that there is no force in this submission. The lower Appellate court has considered the relevant material on record, and I am unable to hold that the finding is vitiated in law.

The second contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the case falls within Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, Durga, the sole surviving widow, became full owner of the property. For the purpose of determining whether Section 14(1) of the Act applies, it is necessary to examine the terms of the will executed by Khemi Ram. A plain reading of the will shows that the donor intended to leave the entire corpus of the property to Vidya and that during their life time the three widows were entitled to the possession of the property for the purpose of maintaining it and enjoying the income accruing from it. Upon their death, the entire bundle of rights in the property would belong to Vidya. It is apparent from the terms of the will that the three widows were vested with a restricted estate only in the property. It was contemplated by the donor that the entire corpus of the property would devolve on Vidya and the widows would have no right to alienate any part of it. The case, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, Section 14(1) does not come into play. That being so, Durga did not become full owner of the property and she had no right to execute a will in favour of Nand Ram respecting it.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.