- (1.) THIS order will dispose of two second appeals, R. S. A. No. 592 of 1958 and R. S. A. No. 601 of 1958.
(2.) THE land in dispute at one time belonged to Daya Singh who was childless and left a widow smt. Ind Kaur. He made a will of his land on the 21st of Kartik, 1958 Bk. in favour of one bakhtawar Singh, who was his brother-in-law's son. According to the Hadayats of the Ruler of nabha State, to which the parties belong, the will had to be submitted to the Ruler for sanction. The will was submitted for sanction on the 21st of Kartik, 1958 Bk. On the 24th of Kartik, 1958 bk. the sanction was refused. In 1960 Bk. Daya Singh died and was succeeded by his widow smt. Ind Kaur. The matter of sanction was again raised by Bakhtawar Singh and on the 18th of baisakh, 1965 Bk. the sanction was granted: vide Exhibit P. W. The sanction was in these terms: "so it is ordered that Bakhtawar Singh who is a relation of Daya Singh from his parents-in-law side be held to be owner of Daya Singh's self-acquired property according to the will made by daya Singh on 21-7-1958 Bk. which had been disallowed by orders of His Highness, dated 24-7-1958 Bk. It is directed that Bakhtawar Singh will have no right to sell or mortgage this property so long as there are lineal descendants of Bakhtawar Singh they would remain in possession of this property. Bakhtawar Singh or his lineal descendants as well will have no right to make any adoption qua the property left by Daya Singh. . . . . . . . . " It seems that in spite of this sanction, Smt. Ind Kaur continued in possession of this property till her death, whereafter it was taken by Bakhtawar Singh, the legatee under the will and on his death, it was inherited by his widow Smt. Bhagawan Kaur. She, however, sold a part of this property on 28-2-1957, to one sant Ram Das Gurdev Singh, who is a second degree collateral of Daya Singh brought the present suit that in view of the terms of the sanction accorded by the Ruler, the alienation will not affect his rights of succession on the death of the widow. This suit was decreed by the trial court on 31-10-1957, and an appeal against that decision also failed. The present appeals are by the vendee as well as by the widow of Bakhtawar Singh (R. S. A. No. 592 of 1958 and R. S. A. No. 601 of 1958 ).
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these appeals must succeed. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act the whole position is altered. Section 14 of the Act makes a female Hindu possessed of property whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act as an absolute owner of the same. It cannot be disputed that on the death of Bakhtawar Singh, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur came into lawful possession of his property, and as soon as the Act came into force, she became its absolute owner. At this stage the arguments of Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the respondents in one appeal and Mr. Babu Ram in the other, may be enumerated before they are examined. The learned counsel contend: 1. That under S. 14 (2) of the Act, Smt. Bhagwan Kaur holds a life estate in this property, because she got it under an instrument, Exhibit P. W. which in terms restricted the estate for life only. 2. That under the aforesaid instrument Smt. Bhagwan Kaur had no right whatever to succeed to this property as Bakhtawar Singh had died without leaving any lineal descendant and the widow not being a lineal descendant the property immediately vested in the collaterals of Daya Singh, and as such she could not be deemed to be in a possession of the property for the purpose of S. 14 (1) of the Act, her possession not being lawful. 3. That the Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Central Parliament cannot regulate succession to agricultural land. ;