undivided estate. Thus, indisputably neither Smt. Nadkanwarbai nor the plaintiff Kailash Chand were ever in possession of the suit land. 18. In the case of Munni Devi(supra) which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Bhattacharya, 11the admitted position was that Bhonri Devi, widow of Late Dhannalalji was actually residing in the suit property during the time the coparcener Shri Harinarayanji was alive and even after his death, she continued to reside in the said house and used to collect the rents from the tenants who were occupying the suit property till the date of filing of suit. 19. A Bench of two Honourable Judges of this Court after considering the gamut of Section 14 of the Succession Act in the case of Munni Devi(supra) observed as below: - “14. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that a Hindu woman's right to maintenance was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and