This case of Gangadhar (Dead) through his Legal Representatives & Another v/s Subhadrabai & Others., involves a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Khamgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/2010, which upheld the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2004 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shegaon. The plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of his share in certain ancestral properties, claiming that his mother, Dwarkabai, did not have the legal authority to bequeath them through a Will as her rights were limited per a 1969 Partition-deed.

The plaintiff argued that the properties were allotted to his father, Mahadev, in the 1969 partition, with Dwarkabai having only a life interest without the right to dispose of the properties. He claimed that after Dwarkabai's death in 1993, the properties should have been equally divided among her sons, as specified in the Partition-deed. He contested the validity of the Will executed by Dwarkabai in favor of defendant No.1 and his sister, asserting it was not legally binding on him and his brothers since Dwarkabai did not possess absolute ownership.

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 defended the Will's validity, arguing that after Dwarkabai's death, they became rightful owners through mutation entries. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 supported the plaintiff's claim, seeking their shares in the properties.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that Dwarkabai became the absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and had the right to dispose of the properties through a Will.

The primary legal question was whether Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was applicable, as it would determine Dwarkabai's ownership rights and the validity of the Will.

Appellant's Argument: The plaintiff's counsel argued that Section 14(2) should apply since Dwarkabai's rights were restricted by the Partition-deed, making her a limited owner without the authority to execute a Will. He relied on the precedent set in Sadhu Singh Vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike.

Respondents' Argument: The defense argued that under Section 14(1), Dwarkabai's possession of the properties, acquired in lieu of her maintenance, transformed into absolute ownership, allowing her to bequeath them through a Will. They cited Jupudy Pardha Sarathy Vs. Pentapati Rama Krishna and V. Tulasamma Vs. Sesha Reddy in support.

The court held that:

Dwarkabai had a pre-existing right of maintenance, and the properties given to her under the Partition-deed were in lieu of that right, thereby conferring absolute ownership under Section 14(1).

Restrictions in the Partition-deed were inconsistent with Section 14, which aims to eliminate limited ownership for widows.

Since Dwarkabai was the absolute owner, her Will was valid, and the plaintiff was not entitled to partition.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the substantial question of law answered in the negative, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.