1 SA 203.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.P.Dhorde, , Advocate for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is the appeal by the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 is null and void and for possession. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendants preferred Appeal. The appellate Court allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. P.P.Dhorde, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the lower appellate court has failed to consider the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. It has mis-interpreted the said provision. As per the consent terms entered 2 SA 203.2011 between the parties, the only life interest was created in defendant no. 1 by virtue of the said compromise decree and as such the defendant no. 1 could not become the absolute owner of the property, interalia would not get any right to transfer the said property. Mr. Dhorde, the learned counsel further contends that the lower appellate Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The said provision is not at all applicable. The defendant no. 1 Sonubai did not have any right, title or interest to dispose of the said property after passing of the said compromise decree in R.C.S. No. 241 of 1982. The learned counsel further contends that the intention behind recording the compromise should have been considered that the property should remain in the family. As the defendant no. 1 has agreed that Sonyabapu would be legal representative, the plaintiffs had cancelled the agreement of sale executed by the husband of the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The said terms of compromise will have to be given effect to. According to the learned counsel, even the valuation of the property was not properly shown in the sale deed which shows that the same was executed to defeat the right of the appellants. 3 SA 203.2011 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 4. It is not disputed that the suit property was owned by the husband of defendant no. 1 and on the death of her husband, the defendant no. 1 become the absolute owner of the property. The plaintiffs claim right over the property solely on the basis of the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties in R.C.S. No. 241 of 1982. The said terms of compromise are reproduced by the lower appellate court in para no. 23 of its Judgment. From the perusal of said terms of compromise, it is manifest that even the plaintiffs admitted that defendant Sonubai to be the actual owner and possessor of the suit property. Clause no. 2 of the said compromise laid down that the present defendant no. 1 Sonubai had executed Will deed in favour of Sonyabapu and that Sonubai during her life time will remain the owner of the property and after her death, Sonyabapu will inherit the property. No such will has been produced on record. It is not disputed that Sonyabapu has died. Sonubai has executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 and put defendant no. 2 in possession of the property. The plaintiffs can not claim any right, title or interest over the suit property as no right 4 SA 203.2011 was crystallized in favour of the plaintiffs. Even if the Will would have been executed, the same would take effect only on the death of the defendant no. 1 as the defendant no. 1 has exercised her right over the property during her life time and Sonyabapu is already dead. No right would flow to the plaintiffs. The terms of compromise if read in totality, would not convey any right in favour of the plaintiffs even if it is assumed that some right was created in Sonyabapu. 5. Though Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act has been referred by the District Court, the same may be a mis-nomer. In view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, Sonubai became the absolute owner of the property on the death of her husband and it is not disputed that her husband was the owner of the property. It is with reference to the fact that as Sonubai inherited the property of her husband, the same became her absolute property. 6. Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act also would be of no avail to the appellants in as much as Sonubai became the absolute owner of the property as the successor of her husband. The property was not given to Sonubai by virtue of gift, 5 SA 203.2011 will or the compromise decree. She was the owner of the property. In such circumstances, Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act also would not be applicable. 7. In light of the above, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 203.2011