1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.388 OF 2009 Mohan s/o Maruti Gore, R/o-Shiral (Chinchondi), Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Sow. Shobhabai w/o Mohanrao Gore, R/o-Shiral (Chinchondi), Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar Presently residing at- Wagholi, Tq-Shevgaon, Dist-Ahmednagar. 2) Balasaheb s/o Janardhan Jadhav, R/o-Shankarwadi (Miri), Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for Appellant. None present for Respondent No.1 Mr.B.V. Wagh Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Present Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 10th 2 December, 2008 passed by District Judge-4, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2005 arising out of the Judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2004 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2004. Respondents are original defendants. 2. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring 80 R's from Gut No.214/1 at village Shankarwadi, Tq-Pathardi, District- Ahmednagar. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased suit property in the name of defendant No.1 from one Bhausaheb Sayaji Jadhav for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 5th September, 2000. Though the suit property has been purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, the entire consideration was paid by him. Since the date of sale deed, the plaintiff is cultivating the suit property and taking the income from it. The defendant No.1, as per say of her father, prior to one year left the house of the plaintiff and went to her parent's house to reside there. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 with the collusion of her father, 3 executed sale deed on 18th October, 2000 for consideration of Rs.52,000/- in favour of defendant No. 2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had no right to execute the sale deed and therefore the sale-deed is illegal and without consideration. 3. On the other hand the defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing her written statement dated 25th March, 2004. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that the suit property was purchased by her with the assistance of her father, who financed her in doing so. In the trial Court the defendant No.1 produced certificate issued by the Bank at Exhibit 63 as well as the receipt issued by Cotton Federation at Exhibit 64 to show that she purchased the suit property from her own fund with the assistance of her father. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that she is the owner of the suit property and, therefore she has a right to sell the same and she sold the said property to the defendant No.2. 4. On the basis of the submissions of both the 4 parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES FINDINGS 1) Do plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 28.10.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and without consideration? In the negative. 2) Do plaintiff proves his possession over the suit property? In the negative. 3) Do plaintiff proves alleged obstruction? In the negative. 4) Is plaintiff entitled to relief of declaration as claimed? In the negative. 5) Is plaintiff entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as claimed? In the negative. 6) What order and decree? As per final order. ADDITIONAL ISSUE 7) Do defendant proves that suit property is her Sridhan or absolute property? In the affirma- tive. 5. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that sale deed dated 28th October, 2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is illegal and without consideration. The trial Court further held that the defendant No.1 proved that suit property was her Stridhana and therefore she had 5 the right to dispose of the same as per her wishes. 6. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2004 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2005. The first appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the extent that the defendant No.1 failed to prove that the suit property purchased by her from her own source of income. The first Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground that in view of Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act,1956, defendant No.1 is full owner of the suit property and the plaintiff has no right to claim the same though the same was purchased by the plaintiff from his own source of income. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the first appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 is full owner of the suit property in view of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He submitted that both the Courts below failed to consider that once the plaintiff proves that the entire consideration is paid 6 by him and the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 for the sake of convenience and out of love and affection, the defendant No.1 has no right to dispose of the said property without prior consent of the plaintiff. He further submitted that the first appellate Court mis-interpreted the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He submitted that provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable in the present case at all. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that in view of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, defendant No.1 is full owner of the suit property and she has right, title and interest to dispose of the same as per her wishes. 8. To consider the main controversy in the present Second Appeal, it is necessary to quote Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as under: "14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property- (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shell be held by her as full owner thereof and 7 not as a limited owner. Explanation - In this sub-section, 'property' includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person whether a relative or not, before, at or after the marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act." 9. It is crystal clear from Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (supra) that if any property possessed by the female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, she is full owner thereof. The explanation to the Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 says that property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift etc. or in any other manner whatsoever, in that case the Hindu female becomes absolute owner of the said 8 property. The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that whatsoever property possessed by the Hindu female, it will be her absolute ownership and not a limited ownership not withstanding the position obtaining under traditional Hindu Law. The Apex Court in the matter of Jagannath Pillai vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai and others, reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 572 held that once the property is acquired by female Hindu in her own name without any restrictions on the same, then she is to be treated as full owner of the said property. The Apex Court in the above mentioned matter held that: "Thus on the date on which her right to the property was called into question, she was 'possessed' of the property which she had inherited from her husband she having by then re-acquired and regained what she had lost. And by virtue of the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act the limitation which previously inhered in respect of the property disappeared upon the coming into operation of the Act. It is no longer open to anyone now to contend that she had only a 'limited' ownership in the said property and not a 'full' ownership, the concept of limited 9 ownership having been abolished altogether, with effect from the coming into operation of the Act." 10. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that in the present case though the property is purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 becomes the full owner of the said property and she has every right to dispose of the same as per her wish. Except this submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has not advanced any other point in the present case. 11. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any lacuna in appreciating the evidence on record by both the Courts below. There is no any substantial question of law involved in the present Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore dismissed with no order as to the costs. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/sa388.09