1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2008 Shri Babu Maruti Bhame (since deceased through L.Rs 2(i) to (vii). ..Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) Versus Revubai Bab urao Bhame (Deceased) & Ors. ..Respondents Miss Alpa Zaveri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Kolekar i/b. Mr. D.A.Siddiqui, Advocates, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATED: 23rd October, 2008. DATED: 23rd October, 2008. DATED: 23rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants before the Court are the L.Rs of 2 the original plaintiffs. Admittedly, one Revubai was the wife of the plaintiff No.1 - Babu Maruti Bhame. She had filed Regular Civil Suit No.37 of 1989 against her husband Babu seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.40/- per month. The matter was compromised between the parties and the suit property was given by Babu to his wife and she surrendered all her further rights against him. On the basis of the compromise, decree was passed. The decree was put to execution and she took possession of the property. She sold the suit property to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under a registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.290 of 1984 seeking declaration that she had no right to dispose of the property in favour of any third person and also sought a declaration that the sale deed executed by her in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was null and void. The defendant No.1 - Revubai contested the suit contending that had become absolute owner of the property. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claimed to be bonafide purchasers for consideration. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by that, the defendant no.3 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.567 of 2000. That appeal was allowed. The appellate court came to conclusion that in view of the terms of compromise decree and the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, Revubai had 3 become absolute owner of the property and she was entitled to dispose of the same. Acordingly, te suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal. 3. The learned appellate Court noted the terms of compromise decree, which shows that in Regular Civil Suit No.37 of 1959, defendant No.1 Babu had handed over the suit land with right to take water from the well towards her right of maintenance and possession of the land was also to be given to her. With this compromise, both the parties surrendered their rival contentions and claims against each other. There is nothing to show that as per the compromise decree, she was not entitled to dispose of the property or she was not to be the absolute owner of the property. It only indicates that even though she was entitled to get maintenance during her lifetime, the property was given to her and as a result of that she had surrendered her right to claim past or future maintenance from her husband. The learned lower appellate Court noted the provisions of Section 14(1) and (2) of Hindu Marriage Act and after discussion about the legal position and the facts, came to conclusion that by virtue of Section 14(1), Revubai had become absolute owner of the property and therefore, the sale deed executed by her could not be declared null 4 and void. In view of the facts and legal position and the reasons given by the lower appellate Court, I find no substantial question of law involved in the present Appeal. 4. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)