1. The following genealogy shows the relationship between the parties to this dispute.

Anantbhat died on 12-11-1924. His son Dadbhat had gone out of the joint family by adoption before the death of Anantbhat. Vasudeo had predeceased Anantbhat and he died in 1907. Harbhat the eldest son was alive at the date of the death of Anantbhat. Anantbhat held at the time of his death several properties two out of which were S. Nos. 110 and 111.

After the death of Anantbhat there was a partition of some of the joint family properties. But S. Nos. 110 and 111 were not divided because S. No. 111 was a Dharmadaya property, and it was assumed that the Vat Hukums which were in operation in the former Kolhapur State would not permit partition of that property. S. No. 110 was regarded as accretion of S. No. 111 and therefore not liable to partition.

In 1929 the State Government issued a Vat Hukum whereby the Dharmadaya properties were regarded not as Inam properties, but as Rayatava properties and therefore partible. The plaintiff who is the son of Vasudeo filed Suit No. 328 of 1942 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hatkanangale for a half share in S. Nos. 110 and 111 on the footing that he was entitled on partition to a share in those properties as they were the properties of the joint family to which he and the first defendant belonged. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kagal, and was numbered 163 Of 1949.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of half of the share in the suit properties, and that the plaintiffs suit in any event was barred by the law of limitation. The learned trial Judge accepted the contentions raised by the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

3. In appeal to the District Court at Kolhapur, the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree passed by the. trial Court and awarded to the plaintiff a half share in the suit property together with mesne profits to be ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12, Clause (c), C. P. C. The learned appellate Judge also awarded Rs. 375/-to the plaintiff by way of mesne profits. Defendants 3 and 4 have come to. this Court in second appeal.

4. It is unnecessary to decide that under the Vat Hukums of the Kolhapur State a Dharmadaya property must be regarded as impartible and devolving only by the rule of primogeniture. Even on the assumption that S. No. 111 was impartible property and devolved by the rule of primogeniture, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Judge was fight in holding that after the tenure of the property was altered and the property became recognised as Rayatava property the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a share therein on partition.

As I have stated earlier in 1925 there was partition of the other properties of the joint family, but S. Nos. 110 and 111 were not partitioned. AS pointed out by Sir Dinshah Mulla in Article 587 of his Hindu Law in considering whether an ancestral impartible estate is a coparcenary property or not a distinction should be drawn between the present rights, that is, the right to demand a partition and the right to joint enjoyment, and future rights.

In the case of an impartible estate, the. right to partition and the right of joint enjoyment are from the very nature of the property incapable bf existence, and there is no coparcenary to this extent. No coparcener, therefore, can prevent alienation of the estate by the holder for the time being either by gift or by will, nor is he entitled to maintenance out of the estate. But as regards future rights, that is the right to survivorship, the property is to be treated as coparcenary property, so that on the death intestate of the last holder, it will devolve by survivorship according to the rule stated in Section 591.

It is evident that impartible property is joint family property. But two out of the three principal incidences of the joint family property can (not?) be enforced in re