RSA No. 3338 of 2003 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3338 of 2003 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Kishan Singh ......Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Balram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the estate of Dhan Kaur wife of Waryam Singh as natural heirs, has been dismissed. Waryam Singh son of Ran Singh was owner of the property in dispute. Ran Singh had three other sons, namely, Bhagwan Singh; Harnam Singh and Rittu. Waryam Singh executed a gift deed dated 12.1.1972 in favour of his wife Dhan Kaur. After the death of Waryam Singh, his widow Dhan Kaur has executed a Will dated 22.12.1972 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The challenge in the suit is to the Will executed by deceased-Dhan Kaur. It has been found that earlier the gift deed dated 12.1.1972 was challenged in a suit, which was decided on 3.9.1973, Exhibit D.1. Waryam Singh deceased appeared as a witness in the aforesaid suit and admitted RSA No. 3338 of 2003 (2) execution of the gift deed. The said gift deed executed by Waryam Singh in favour of his wife was upheld by the learned trial Court as it was held that the issue regarding right of Waryam Singh to execute gift deed in the previous suit, is substantially the same in the present suit and therefore, the finding recorded in the aforesaid suit would be binding while deciding the present suit. Learned trial Court recorded that the Will dated 22.12.1972 is proved to be executed and that in terms of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short `the Act'), the limited estate inherited by Dhan Kaur would ripe into an absolute one. Reliance was placed upon Gulwant Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 1987 SC 2251. Such finding has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the property was a joint Hindu family property and therefore, Waryam Singh, could not execute the gift deed nor could Dhan Kaur, who was not a member of the co-parcenary, execute a Will. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are not sustainable. However, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. Even if the property was a joint Hindu family property, the same is deemed to be notionally partitioned soon before the death of Waryam Singh. Being a widow of Waryam Singh, Dhan Kaur has a right of maintenance against the property of Waryam Singh. Such limited interest in the property of Waryam Singh ripens into full ownership in terms of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, (1977)3 SCC 99 and other judgments following the aforesaid case. RSA No. 3338 of 2003 (3) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded or that the findings recorded give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16-07-2009 ds