Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 824 of 1968. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 23 8 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. (Review) application No. 32 of 1966 (in S.A. 4357/65). J. P. Goyal for the Appellant. V. section Desai and V. N. Ganpule for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA	 J. The following pedigree table illustrates the relationship of the parties: Hira Lal=Smt. Naraini Devi (plaintiff). (died in 1925). Kapoor Chand Nemi Chand Chandra Bhan (died in 1954) (Judgment debtor) (died in 1930) =Smt. Ramo Devi	 (extinct) (Respondent 1) Decree holder. 5 L390 SCI/76 56 Smt. Ramo Devi	 widow of Kapur Chand (shown in the above pedigree table) obtained a money decree against her husband 's brother Nemi Chand. In execution of her decree she got attached one half share in the double storeyed House No. 4416	 situated at Agra representing it to be of the judgment debtor. Naraini Devi	 widow of Hira Lal	 filed an objection petition under 0.21	 r. 58	 Code of Civil Procedure against that attachment claiming the house to be her property. That objection was dismissed by the executing court on the 16th July	 1962. Thereafter	 she filed a suit under 0.21	 r. 63	 Code 11 of Civil Procedure to establish her claim. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal	 the District Judge reversed the judgment t and dismissed the suit. Naraini Devi 's second appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court. She filed a review petition which was rejected by the High Court on August 23	 1967. Hence	 this appeal by special leave. i It is common ground between the parties that under a registered J award dated January 4	 1946	 the plaintiff Smt. Naraini Devi was given a life interest in the house in dispute. The appellant 's contention is that her limited interest in the house was enlarged into that of a full owner by the operation of sub section (1) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. As against this	 the respondents maintain that her case falls under sub section (2) of section 14. The question thus turns on a construction of the award exhibit 2. We have examined an English rendering of this document filed by the appellant	 the correctness of which is not disputed` by the respondent. This award states in clear	 unmistakable terms that she	 Naraini Devi would be entitled to the rent of this house in lieu of maintenance for her life time	 and after her death	 her sons	 Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand will be owners of half share each of this house. This award further partitions this house between Kapoor Chand and Nemi Chand and allots specific portions thereof to the two brothers. A part of this house was in the occupation of a tenant at Rs. 32/ per month. Naraini Devi was given a right to get that rent. A part of it was in the personal occupation of Kapoor Chand. The award protects and assures his right of remaining in possession of the same. A reading of this document as a whole	 leaves little doubt that the only interest	 in this house created in favour of the widow was that she would be entitled to its rent and no more for her life time. Thus the award confers on her only a restricted estate in the house within the meaning of sub section (2) of section 14 which says: "Nothing contained in sub section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift	 will or other instrument or the decree	 order or award prescribe a restrict ed estate in such property." Mr. Goyal however	 submits that her case would fall within this Court 's ruling in Badri Prasad vs Smt. Kanan Devi(1) according to (1) ; 57 which	 if the widow has a pre existing right in the property	 then the A case will fall under sub section (1)	 and sub section (2) which is in the nature of a proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 will not be attracted. The rule in Badri Prasad 's case (supra) is not applicable here. Ill that case the widow had acquired a share in the property by virtue of the Hindu Women 's Right to Property Act	 1937	 on the death of her husband	 which took place after the coming into operation of that Act. In the present case	 Smt. Naraini Devi 's husband died in 1925. In the presence of her sons	 the widow did not get any share or interest in the house left by her husband under the Hindu Law as then applicable. In short	 she had no pre existing right or interest in the house in question. It was the award dated January 4	 1946	 that created a restricted estate for her in the house in question. Her case thus falls; squarely within the ambit of sub section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Her interest therefore	 came to an end on her death which took place during the pendency of these proceedings. For reasons aforesaid the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

'N ' a widow of 'H '	 who	 under the Hindu law then applicable and in the presence of her three sons did not get any share or interest in the house left by her late husband and therefore got a life interest by virtue of a registered award filed 3 suit under order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. to establish her claim to the property that had been attached in execution of the decree against her second son obtained by her eldest daughter in law. 'N 's suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appellate court reversed that decree. The second appeal and he review in the High Court failed. On appeal by special leave	 rejecting the contention that "the appellants limited interest was enlarged into that of a full owner by the operation of sub sec. (I) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act	 the Court ^ HELD: (I) A reading of the award as a whole	 leaves little doubt	 that the only interest in the house created in favour of the widow was that she would be entitled to its rent	 and no more for her life time. [56 F] (2) In the present case	 the appellant did not get any share or interest in the house left by her husband under the Hindu Law as then applicable. She had no pre existing right or interest in the property. [57 B] (3) The award created a restricted estate for her in the house	 and [57 B] (4) The ease fell squarely within the ambit of sub section (2) of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and her interest came to an end on her death. [57 C] Badri Prasad vs Smt. Kanan Devi ; 	 not applicable.