Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) SHEO Harakh died leaving three sons, Ram Rup, Ram Jag and Ram Sundar. He left a large property, including many occupancy tenancy plots. One of his sons, Ram Sundar, died in 1939, and was succeeded by his widow Smt. Phulbasi. Differences having arisen between her and the brothers of her husband, she filed a suit for partition, claiming a one-third share in the family properties. She pleaded that her husband, Ram Sundar, was separate from the other brothers, that occupancy tenancy holdings were governed by personal law in matters of succession, and that she, as the heir of her husband, had inherited a one-third share. The other members of the family contested the suit. They pleaded that Ram Sundar had died as a member of the Hindu undivided family and his interest went to his other brothers by survivorship.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit the parties settled their dispute outside court. Smt. Phulbasi recognised that her husband had died in a state of jointness with his brothers, and that the entire property was joint family property. The defendants recognised that Sm. Phulbasi was entitled to maintenance, in lieu of which she was given a large number of plots mentioned in the agreement. Such plots included the two occupancy tenancy plots now in dispute, namely, Nos. 199 and 200, situate in village Chakia, Taluqa Chauthar, district Varanasi. The agreement further stated that Sm. Phulbasi will enjoy them for her life and have no right to transfer the plots given to her on any ground. This agreement dated 18-1-44 was filed before the court, where the suit for partition was pending, and soon after the court passed a decree in terms of the compromise on February 29, 1944. On commencement of the consolidation proceedings Sm. Phulbasi claimed a one-third share in the holdings. The Consolidation Officer held that she was bound by the compromise decree, and under it she only had a right of enjoyment of the plots and that she had no interest in them. He directed that she be recorded as occupant over the two plots, namely, plots Nos. 199 and 200, which were in dispute in those proceedings. On appeal the Settlement Officer held that the effect of the compromise decree was that two plots were transferred to the lady and she became their bhumidhar. This view was affirmed by the Deputy Director of Revision.
(3.) THE other members of the family filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge held that under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act Sm. Phulbasi became full owner of the two plots. Sub- section (2) of Section 14 was held inapplicable because the rights in favour of the lady were not created by the compromise decree but were recognised by the antecedent family arrangement. It could not hence be said that any instrument, decree or order prescribed a restricted estate in her favour. The ultimate decision that Sm. Phulbasi had become bhumidhar was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the other members of the family have come up in appeal.;