Supreme Court restores trial court's decree, upholds absolute title under father's will.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution, rejected the limitation period argument, determined that Mst. Laxmi acquired an absolute title under her father's oral will, upheld the validity of the High Court's certificate for appeal, and clarified that there is no presumption of limited interest in property bequeathed to a female heir.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Limitation period for filing the suit.
3. Nature of the estate conferred upon Mst. Laxmi by the oral will.
4. Validity of the High Court's certificate for appeal.
5. Presumption of limited interest in property bequeathed to a female heir.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that under the Code of Civil Procedure of the Jaipur State, the decision of the Jaipur High Court had become final, and hence, the appeal was incompetent. The Supreme Court overruled this objection, stating that the operative decree in the suit was the one passed by the Rajasthan High Court on April 5, 1950, after the Constitution of India came into force. Therefore, the provisions of Article 133 of the Constitution were applicable, making the appeal maintainable.

2. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The appellant contended that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, arguing that the plaintiff's possession of the property discontinued from August 24, 1933, and thus, the suit filed after twelve years was not within time. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, which unanimously held that the plaintiff was in possession of the house during Laxmi's lifetime and continued thereafter until dispossessed by the appellant. The law presumes continuity of possession, and there were no valid grounds for reviewing this finding.

3. Nature of the Estate Conferred Upon Mst. Laxmi by the Oral Will:
The appellant argued that Mst. Laxmi acquired an absolute title under her father's oral will, while the respondent contended that the will conferred only a limited life estate. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the plaintiff admitted in his testimony that Ramchandra made a will in favor of Laxmi, and the gift deed executed by the widows supported this. The Court held that Ramchandra intended to confer upon Laxmi the same title he possessed, making her the absolute owner of the property.

4. Validity of the High Court's Certificate for Appeal:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court erred in granting the certificate for appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the property in question was valued at Rs. 20,000, and a substantial question of law was involved regarding whether a testamentary disposition by a Hindu in favor of a female heir conferred only a limited estate. The Court held that the High Court was fully justified in granting the certificate and would have admitted the appeal under Article 136(1) of the Constitution if necessary.

5. Presumption of Limited Interest in Property Bequeathed to a Female Heir:
The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's error in presuming that a gift to a female heir conferred only a limited estate unless expressly stated otherwise. The Court clarified that there is no legal presumption that a gift to a female heir is limited unless specified. The Court cited previous judicial decisions and emphasized that words conferring absolute ownership on a female heir should be interpreted as such, without requiring express terms of alienation. The Court concluded that Laxmi was the absolute owner of the property, and the plaintiff had no claim to it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The Court made no order as to costs.

---