by her whether acquired before or after the commencement of 1956 Act in lieu of her right to maintenance.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Thus it is clear from the above observations and findings in the case of Munni Devi(supra) that this Court after taking into consideration the pre-existing right of Bhonri Devi to maintenance from the estate of the HUF of her husband and her exclusive settled possession over the suit property concluded that she had acquired the suit property in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance and that she had held the suit property as the full owner and not limited owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Succession Act. 21. Thus, what we are required to adjudicate in the present case is as to whether in absence of even a semblance of possession either actual or legal over the suit property, plaintiff Kailash Chand 15being the legal heir of Smt. Nandkanwarbai was entitled to institute a Revenue suit for partition of the suit property based on the succession