- (1.)THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table :-Rajaram who was son of Girdhari died on the 11th November 1918, leaving behind his widow, Mst. Pyaribahu. Girdhari died on the 16th November 1918 leaving behind his widow Nonibahu. Noni Bahu died sometime in 1926. Thereafter, the properties belonging to Girdhari came in possession of his daughter-in-law Pyaribahu. In 1928, a civil suit was filed by Phundi for recovery of the properties left by Girdhari on the ground that Pyaribahu was not an heir and Phundi was entitled to succeed under the Hindu Law as then in force. The suit ended in a compromise; half of the properties were given to phundi, and Pyaribahu was allowed to continue in possession of the other half under the conditions mentioned in the compromise, which is Ex. P-6. Pyaribahu was to have a life estate in the properties including lands that were allowed to remain in her possession. Phundi died leaving behind Imrat and Dulichand. On the 27th April 1963, Pyaribahu sold all the lands that were allowed to remain in her possession under the compromise, Ex. P-6, in favour of one maniram, for a sum of Rs. 4,000 / -. On 28th November 1963, Imrat and dulichand commenced the suit which has given rise to this appeal, against pyaribahu and Maniram, for a declaration that the sale was ineffective against their interest and will not be operative after the death of Pyaribahu. The trial Court dismissed the suit and that decree was confirmed in appeal by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sagar. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up in second appeal.
(2.)THE learned Additional District Judge first held that the compromise entered in the suit of 1928 did not confer upon the widow a restricted estate, and therefore, the entire basis of the suit was absent. In my opinion, this construction placed upon the compromise is entirely erroneous. The compromise that was entered into in the earlier suit is Ex. P-6, and at the foot of this document, after the list of lands, it is entered as follows : -
"out of the lands, the defendant has given half to the plaintiff and has retained half in her possession for life. "
The suit was decided in accordance with the compromise and a decree was passed in terms thereof. Although the judgment and decree did not clearly refer that the lands that were left with Pyaribahu were only for her life, in my opinion, the judgment and decree must be construed in the light of the compromise which was entered into by the parties. A compromise decree is nothing but the compromise itself to which a Court has to put its approval, and given the form of a decree. As in the compromise, Pyaribahu was permitted to retain the lands only for her life, it is clear that she was given only a limited estate, and the judgment and decree must also be construed accordingly.
(3.)THE next question is, whether the Courts below were right in holding that Pyaribahu became a full owner of the lands in her possession under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, sub-section (2) of section 14 was applicable and Pyaribahu did not become a full owner. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the case was governed by sub-section (1) and pyaribahu became a full owner.