Veeravva at the relevant time. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the words "possessed by" had a wider meaning than actual physical possession, although physical possession may be included in the expression. In the case of Gaddam Venkayamma v. Gaddam Veerayya MANU/AP/0182/1956 : A.I.R. 1957 A P 280, Viswanatha Sastri, J., with whom Satyanarayana Raju, J., agreed, expressed the opinion that "the word 'possessed' in section 14 refers to possession on the date when the Act came into force. Of course, possession referred to in section 14 need not be actual physical possession or personal occupation of the property by the Hindu female but may be possession in law. The possession of a licensee, lessee or a mortgagee from the female owner or the possession of a guardian or a trustee or an agent of the female owner would be her possession for the purpose of section 14. The word "possessed" is used in section 14 in a broad sense and in the context possess means the state of owning or having in one's hands or power. It includes possession by receipt of rents and profits." The learned Judges expressed the view that even if a trespasser were in possession of the land belonging to a female owner, it might conceivably be regarded as being in possession of the female owner, provided the trespasser had not perfected his title. We do not think that it is necessary in the present case to go to the extent to which the learned Judges went. It is sufficient to say that "possessed" in section 14 is used in a broad sense and in the context means the state of owning or having in one's hand or power. In the case of Gostha Behari v. Haridas Samanta MANU/WB/0147/1957 : AIR1957Cal557 , P. N. Mookherjee, J., expressed his opinion as to the meaning of the words "any property possessed by a female Hindu" in the following words :-
