1. This Rule raises a short question. It is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Jalpaiguri in Misc. Judicial Case No. 21 of 1956 under S. 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the learned District Judge has refused the petitioners prayer for payment to her of a moiety share of the award of Rs. 2,400/- on account of compensation for a masonry wall which had been deposited by the Collector in court under the said provision of law. The petitioner claims payment on the ground, inter alia, that, whatever might have been the position before the new Hindu Succession Act of 1956, under S. 14(1) of that Act her interest in that money is no longer the limited interest of a Hindu widow but has become absolute interest making her absolute owner thereof. The question is whether the case would come under S. 14(1) or would be governed by the exception thereto as enacted in the next Sub-Section.



2. The petitioner Jaria Devi claims title to the money as the heiress of her husband who was one of the four co-parceners of the particular family owning, inter alia, the acquired property and alleges that, under a deed of partition, she had been allotted a moiety share of the property along with others in lieu of her admitted one-fourth share in the joint properties. She contends that, in the circumstances, her limited interest as a Hindu widow in the properties, allotted to her as aforesaid, must be held to have been transformed into absolute interest under S. 14(1) of the new Hindu Succession Act. If this had been a simple case of partition, allotting properties to the parties in proportion to their respective admitted shares, the petitioners contention might have been correct, but where, as here., the widow co-sharer has been allotted properties not strictly according to her share, under a deed which is described as a deed of partition but which, in reality, is a deed of family arrangement not allotting properties to the widow strictly in accordance with any admitted share but by way of family arrangement, expressly stipulating that the widow will have no more than a life interest therein, the case, in our opinion, would fall within the exception, S. 14(2), and not within the general rule, enacted in S. 14(1) of the Act. The petitioners title to the acquired property is really founded on the above deed and not on any admitted share of inheritance. In this view, we affirm the order of the learned District Judge and discharge this Rule, though, in the circumstances, we would make no order as to costs.

Rule discharged.