Full Judgment
D.N. Roy, J.
1. This is an application in revision by Smt. Triveni Devi arising out of an order dated 14th of October, 1957, The circumstances leading up to this application are these. One Raghunath Prasad died on 1st of April, 1956, leaving the petitioner as his widow and three other minor daughters, besides one major daughter, as his heirs. He left an amount of Rs. 7,200/- as principal and certain sum as interest in the savings bank account. The widow applied for a succession certificate in her own name. As the interest of three minor daughters was involved, a conditional certificate was granted to her that she would be entitled to deal with the money only with the permission of the Court.
2. The petitioner then filed an application in review pleading that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act were not brought to the notice of the Judge at the time the conditional order was passed. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that she took the entire estate absolutely, even to the exclusion of her daughters. That contention was repelled by the Judge who held that in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of Raghunath Prasad, who died intestate, devolved upon his daughters and widow mentioned as heirs in class 1 of the Schedule.
In view of Section 9 of the Act the heirs mentioned in class 1 took simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs, Before the Judge it was contended on behalf of the applicant that in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1950, the property in question, which must be deemed to have been possessed by the widow, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been held by her as full owner thereof and not as u limited owner and consequently the daughters were completely excluded, and reliance was placed upon a decision in Venkayamma v. Veerayya, (S) AIR 1957 Andh Pra 280 (A).
In that case the provisions of Section 8 of the Act were not considered at all. There, upon an interpretation of Section 14(1), it was held that though Section 14 of the Act is retrospective in so far as it enlarges a Hindu Woman's limited estate into an absolute estate even in respect of property inherited or held by her as a limited owner before the Act came into force, its operation is confined to property in the possession of the female when the Act came into force; and that the word 'possessed' in Section 14 refers to possession on the date when the Act came into force. It was further held that the possession referred to in Section 14 need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation of the property by the Hindu female, but may be possession in law.
3. In the present case Section 14 of the Act had had no application, whatsoever. It is Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 which will govern the matter. And that section clearly entitled the widow along with the daughters to inherit the estate of the deceased. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not in any way affect the devolution of the property envisaged in Section 8.
What Section 14 intends to do is that whereas previously, that is before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force, the female took only a limited estate, after the coming into force of Section 14 of the Act the limited estate was enlarged into full ownership. That is all that Section 14 says and in my opinion it does not in any way affect the right which have been acquired by the daughters under Section 8 of the Act. In this view of the matter the conditional certificate granted was perfectly just and proper. There is no force in this revisional petition and it is accordingly dismissed.