The widow of a deceased member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara under the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, has a special limited statutory right, and her interest cannot be represented by her sons in a partition suit.

Narayan, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff who is the son of one Halkhori Singh sued for the partition of several properties which have been described in four schedules in the plaint. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of the plaintiff, and the defendant No. 4 is the wife of the plaintiff. The defendant No 5 was Ramsaran Singh, another son of Halkhori Singh, who died during the pendency of this appeal. The sons of Ramsaran were impleaded as defendants Nos. 6, 7 & 8 in the action. The defendant No, 9 is the son of Ramkeshwar Singh who was another son of Halkhori Singh, and the defendants Nos. 10 to 12 are the sons of defendant No. 9. Besides these defendants, there are another set of defendants, namely, the defendants third party, and they have been described in the plaint as the co-sharers of the plaintiff and the defendants first and second parties in respect of several properties sought to be partitioned. Khatas Nos. 51 and 52 are included within Schedule No. 3 of the plaint, and partition is sought with regard to these khatas as well.

2. Besides other defendants, the suit was resisted by the defendants Nos. 18 to 21, and their defence was confined to khatas Nos. 51 and 52. The plea set up by these defendants was that khatas Nos, 51 and 52, were property which had been acquired by Mana Singh, the deceased brother of the defendants 18 and 19 and the father of the defendants Nos. 20 and 21. The contention urged on their behalf is that the plaintiff or the defendants first and second parties could not seek a partition of these lands, inasmuch as these lands were the exclusive property of Mana Singh and had been acquired by him under certain sale-deeds.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge after examining the evidence with regard to the lands of khatas Nos. 51 and 52 came to the conclusion that Mana Singh was a mere farzidar for Halkhori Singh, the ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants first and second parties, and the father of Ramkeshwar Siigh, Ramsaran Singh and Saudagar Singh.

4. The defendants Nos. 18 to 21 have, therefore, come up in appeal, and the only contention put-forward on their behalf is that the Court below was wrong in coming to the conclusion that this property (khatas Nos. 51 and 52) had been acquired by Halkhori Singh in the farzi name of Mana Singh, who is the son of one Deonath who was Halkhoris sisters son.

5. The short point which arises for determination In this appeal, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the property in dispute, namely, the lands of khatas Nos. 51 and 52, is a property belonging to Halkhori Singh and his descendants. Though we find that this appeal has abated, as both parties have submit ted their arguments even on the merits of the case. I should like to record a finding on the question as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the lands of khatas Nos. 51 and 52 are property belonging to his family in which he is entitled to have a share on partition. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his claim with regard to these lands. (After considering the evidence his Lordship concluded :) Thus, I must hold, in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge, that Mana Singh was a mere farzidar for Halkhori and that ever since these lands were purchased they were in possession of Halkhori and his descendants. The transactions of sale took place long ago, and after a lapse of so many years it was not possible for the plaintiff to produce direct evidence for proving the payment of the consideration. The motive for the benami transactions cannot also be properly ascertained after a lapse of so many years since the date of the transactions. On the merits, therefore, this appeal is bound to fail.

6. It appears that Ramsaran Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, and besides his three sons, who are respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9, he has left a widow who has not been subst