S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SHRIMATI Gangajali died in 1971. On her death dispute arose regarding succession to the agricultural land left behind by her. Tulsi and others, original petitioners, based their claim upon succession as reversioners under Hindu Law and Lalji, petitioner in connected Writ Petition No. 3186 of 1975 claimed succession on the ground that he had been adopted by SHRIMATI Gangajali. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia through judgement and order dated 13.1.1975 passed in Revision Nos. 528, 529, 565 and 566 held that SHRIMATI Gangajali did not leave behind any heir, hence her agricultural property vested in State on the principle of escheat.The said judgment was challenged by both, i.e., Tulsi and others and Lalji. Number of writ petition filed by Lalji was 3181 of 1975. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court through common judgment dated 13.11.1991. This Court held that adoption of Lalji by Gangajali has been proved. In respect of Tulsi this Court held as follows : "So far as Tulsi is concerned, his claim has rightly been negatived by the Consolidation Authorities in that he does not come within the list of the heirs specified in Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No other basis of claim was set up by Tulsi and accordingly, I find no merit in his Writ Petition No. 7681 of 1975, Tulsi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others and the same is dismissed." Writ Petition of Lalji was allowed. Tulsi and others filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 7647-48/92 against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court by the following order dismissed the Special Leave Petition: "The petition for special leave are dismissed. It is contended by Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the claim on the basis of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was urged in the High Court and that the statement in the judgment of the High Court that "No other basis of claim was set up by Tulsi...." is not correct. In that case, the petitioners may file a Review Petition in the High Court, if so advised."
(3.) IN view of the above permission granted by the Supreme Court this review petition has been filed. Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act is quoted below : "14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property : (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.-In this sub section "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition or in lieu of arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) 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 restricted estate in such property." ;