and urged that the Division Bench erred in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restoring the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court. (i) That Smt. Nandkanwarbai had no interest, either limited or otherwise, in the suit land which could fructify into absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Succession Act and the Division Bench erred in treating “Charge over property towards Maintenance” as possession over the property. (ii) It was contended that in order to attract Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, there must be a “Property possessed by the Hindu Women” but in the present case, the suit for 8possession and title filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai was dismissed and hence she was never in possession, either legal or actual, over the suit property. iii) That the civil suit for title and possession filed by Smt. Nandkanwarbai having been dismissed, the judgment of the civil Court operated as res judicata and