1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 493 OF 2010 Vijay S/o Raghunath Bhamre .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sumanbai W/o Punju Sonwane & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri A.D.Pawar , Advocate for the appellant Shri S.P. Brahme, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27th October, 2010. PER COURT : This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed suit for possession on the ground that they are the owners of the property and defendants do not have any right title and interest in the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants preferred appeal before the District Court, Dhule. The District Court, Dhule dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendants have assailed 2 the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Shri Pawar learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it is undisputed that the suit property was allotted to Sonabai by Punju for maintenance, thereby creating interest in the estate. According to Shri Pawar, as the suit property was given to Sonabai by way of maintenance, she became an absolute owner of the property and she had every right to enjoy the property as lawful owner, pursuant there to she has executed will in favour of the present appellant Vijay. As such, the appellant has become the owner and is in lawful possession of the suit property. He further submitted that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. Per contra, Shri S.P. Brahme, learned counsel for the respondent/ Ori. Plaintiffs submitted that though the said property was given to Sonabai by way of maintenance by Punju, the said act would not invest Sonabai with ownership of the suit property. Earlier there was a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 353 of 1989 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit decree was 3 passed on 7th Septemebr, 1993. As per the decree, present suit property was given to the share of Punju and Sonabai was given property bearing Gut NO. 50 and house No. 691. As such, present suit property became separate property of Punju. According to learned Counsel for converting the right in the property given by way of maintenance into absolute right, the lady should have a pre- existing right in the said property. For the said purpose the learned Counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in a case of “Ram vishal (Dead) By LRS & Others V/s. Jagan Nath and Another, reported (2004) 9 SCC 302”. 5. With the assistance of learned Counsels, I have gone through the Judgment. The facts are not disputed. The only bone of contention is whether the property given by way of maintenance to Sonabai, who was the step mother of Puju, would become her absolute property. It cannot be disputed that Sonabai did not have any pre-existing right in the said property, as the said property came to the share of Punju, in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court in R.C.S. No. 353 of 1989 and Sonabai 4 was given other property. As Sonabai did not have any right in the said property, the property though was in physical possession of Sonabai, pursuant to the maintenance given by Punju on his own volition, the same would not become absolute property of Sonabai. The Apex Court in the case of Ram vishal (Dead) By LRS & Others V/s. Jagan Nath and Another, referred supra, has held thus :- “ In our view, the authority in Raghubar Singh case can be of no assistance to the respondent. As has been held by this Court, a pre- existing right is a sine qua non for conferment of a full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property. Such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “ in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.” 6. In the light of the above, no error is committed by the Courts below. The Second Appeal 5 being sans any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 10825 of 2010 does not survive and same is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 699.10SA