1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2010 Smt. Savitra Ganpat Gade )..Appellant Vs. Vijay Bhau Gaikwad & Ors. )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode for the appellant. Mr.Vinod Jadhav for the respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 24th February, 2010 PC SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2010 1 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff against concurrent decrees passed by the two lower courts dismissing his suit and for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff is one Savitra whose husband Ganpat expired in the year 1964. Ganpat was one of the sons of Chandra who died on 12.3.1946. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property had been gifted by the mother of Chandra by name Girija vide a deed of gift executed on 24.1.1970. In the written statement filed by defendant no.1 and adopted by defendant nos.3 & 4 the execution of gift deed was admitted but it was contended that possession was not passed to Chandra. Mother of Chandra expired in the year 1929. In these set of facts, both the lower Courts have held that since the property was joint family property of the husband of Girija by name Rau, and since Rau expired in the year 1917, the property would pass to Rau’s brother Bapu who survived Rau and 2 expired in 1942. Both the Courts have held that the property would not devolve by succession. In the circumstances, it has been held that Girija has no right to gift away the property to one of her daughter by name Chandra. Since gift was held to be void, neither Chandra with her sons nor Ganpat have any ownership rights in respect of the suit property. Learned Advocate for the appellant stated that the suit property would become the property of the plaintiff by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act 1946. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bakerao s/o Rangrao Ulhe Vs. Ramkrishna Rajaram Kshirsagar reported in 2009(3) BCR 889. Reliance upon section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is completely mis­placed. What is required by section 14(1) is that a female hindu must possess property and she must acquire it before or after the commencement of the Act. Both the courts have held that plaintiff was not in possession. In fact suit of the plaintiff was for possession. Further the acquisition by the hindu female must be in accordance with law. Once it is held that the gift deed in favour of the alleged predecessor in title of the plaintiff was bad in law, there could have been no acquisition either by Chandra or after her by Ganpat and finally by the plaintiff. The judgment relied upon turned on entirely different facts where there was a maintenance gift made by the husband and he was absolute owner of the suit property. That was not the case where maintenance deed was held to be invalid. Taking into account the aforesaid position, in my view, there is no substantial question of law involved and the Second Appeal stands dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2010 1 As the Second Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J)