Bhagwati, J.

1. This is a second appeal from a judgment of the learned Dist. J. Kanara, who confirmed the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Honavar, in favour of the pltf. The facts which led up to this litigation may be shortly stated as under. 2. One Narayan had three sons Vithal, Venkatraman Nagappa. Vithal died first long before 1937, leaving his widow Ganga. Venkatraman died on 18-6-1938, leaving him surviving his widow Mukambe his son Manjanath. Manjanath died on 18-2-1939. Nagappa was thereafter the sole surviving coparcener of the family the present suit was filed by Mukambe, the widow of Venkatraman, against Nagappa for a partition of the joint family properties possession of her half share therein. The pltf. alleged that after the death of Manjanath on 18-2-1939, she had a half share in the family properties that she was entitled to the same on partition. She also claimed, in the alternative maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per year. The deft, contested her claim. He contended that Ganga had adopted a son by name Dattatarya about five years before the institution of the suit that, therefore, Ganga her son Dattatraya were necessary parties to the suit. He further contended that the pltfs husband had l/6th share in the family properties at the time of his death that the pltf. was not entitled to anything more than that. He lastly contended that the position of the family did not allow separate maintenance been given to the pltf. The learned trial Judge held that the deft, had failed to prove the adoption of Dattatraya by Ganga. He further held that the pltfs husband would have bad a half share in the joint family properties if he had been alive at the date of the institution of the suit that the pltf. the deft, had each a half share in the suit properties, passed a decree in favour of the pltf. for partition on that basis. The deft, appealed against this decision of the learned Judge the learned Dist. J. who heard the appeal confirmed the decree passed by the lower Ct. subject to a variation in the costs which had been awarded to the pltf. The deft, filed this second appeal against that judgment of the learned Dist. J.

3. Mr. Murdeshwar for the deft.-applt. contended before us, (1) that the pltf. is not entitled to any share in the joint family properties, the deft, being the sole surviving coparcener (2) that on a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Hindu Womens Eights to Property Act, 1937, the pltf. is entitled only to a quarter share in the joint family properties.

4. In regard to his first contention the only thing which Mr. Murdeshwar has relied upon is that on the death of Manjanath whatever right, title interest Manjanath had in the joint family properties survived over to the deft. that, therefore, the pltf. had no interest therein. This argument, however, ignores the provisions of the Hindu Womens Eights to Property Act, 1937, which specifically creates rights in favour of Hindu widows to property in which their deceased husbands had an interest whether by virtue of their being members of joint Hindu families governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law or by any other school of Hindu law or by virtue of the properties being their self-acquired properties. If the pltf. had an interest in the joint family properties by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Womens Eights to Property Act, the same could not be affected by the death of Manjanath. She did not claim any properties in the suit by virtue of her being the mother of Manjanath as such entitled to succeed to his estate as his mother. The only claim of hers in the suit was to hava a partition of the joint family properties by virtue of her being the widow of Venkatraman, from that point of view it did not make the slightest difference to her position whether Nagappa was one of the aoparceners or the sole surviving coparcener of the joint family. The only difference of course would be in reg