J.S. Trivedi, J. - (1.) LAL Gopal alias Trilok Nayak filed four suits against the Respondents of these appeals for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by Smt. Kailashi Devi in favour of the defend ant Respondents on the ground that she was holding the property for he maintenance and was an Asami of the land in dispute and she had therefore no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the Defendants Respondents. The Defendant Respondents contested the suit and contended that Smt. Kailashi was holding the property as a Hindu widow and was a Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and as such was competent to execute the sale deeds. The sale deeds were also challenged on the ground that the same were not executed with full understanding and were without legal necessity.
(2.) THE trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for cancellation of the sale deeds, but dismissed the suit for possession on the ground that the relief for possession was barred Under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act and also because the Plaintiff alone was not the sole beneficiary. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal of the Defendant Respondents and dismissed the cross -objection of the Appellant with the result that the suit of the Plaintiff Appellant stood dismissed with costs. These four appeals are filed against the aforesaid judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur. As the suits and appeals were disposed of by one common judgment, these second appeals are also being disposed of by one common judgment. The relevant facts of the case are that Harishchandra Nayak was the common ancestor. He had four sons: Lal Gopal alias Trilok, Radheraman, Radhey Mohan and Radhey Krishna. Radhey Mohan died in 1941 leaving his widow Smt. Kailashi Devi. Harishchandra also died thereafter. After his death, Smt. Kailashi claimed one -fourth share in the property. An agreement was thereafter entered into between the three sons of Harishchandra and Smt. Kailashi, on 15 -5 -46, under which it was agreed that Smt. Kailashi would get her name mutated over one -fourth share of the property. The relevant term of her status as given in para 2 of the agreement was as under: Yen ki mukira fariq doyam ko zai -dad zamindari khandani me mahaz mahduda akhtiyar misl bewa Hindu Khandani ke hasil hoga, yani unko koi akhtiyar kisi tarah kisi zaidad khandani ka intkal karne ka na hoga.... On the abolition of zamindari she became Bhumidhar of the Sir and Khudkasht land which was in her possession and thereafter on various dates between 28 -10 -64 to 27 -1 -67 she executed the four sale deeds in favour of the Defendant Respondents of various agricultural plots of which she was the Bhumidhar. The suits giving rise to these appeals were therefore filed for the reliefs mentioned above.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that Smt. Kailashi in the year 1941 on the death of her husband could not claim any right under the Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act (hereinafter called the Act). All that she was entitled to was a right of maintenance and therefore the agreement dated 15 -5 -46 (Ext. 8) conferred only a right of maintenance on her. It is further contended that she having held the property in lieu of maintenance was entitled to hold the land as an Asami only Under Section 11 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and the transfer by her in favour of the Defendant Respondents was invalid. In support of his contention he has relied on a cyclostyled copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 1954 and 1955 of 1966 Shyam Lal v. Amar Nath. The main passage on which reliance has been placed is an observation of their Lordships after a discussion of Section 3(1) of the Act and which runs as follows: From this provision it is clear that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act applies only to a separate property left by a Hindu male. It does not apply either to a coparcenary property or to the property of a Hindu female.;