The institution of a suit for partition by a widow under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 effects severance of the joint family status and the widow's interest becomes a defined and separate interest.

C.P.Sinha, J.

1. The suit giving rise to this appeal has been instituted by Mosammat Chando Kumari, widow of one Babuji Isser, for partition of the joint family properties. This plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by her two daughters, Sabujpari and Sujan Devi. Defendant No. 10 Mosammat Rajeshwari Issrain, widow of Mohan Lall Isser, was transposed to the category of plaintiffs, and she was numbered as plaintiff No. 3.

2. To understand the relationship between the parties and the plaintiffs case, it is proper that the following genealogical tree should be given :

405.htm

3. According to the plaintiffs case at the time of the survey operations, Babuji Isser was joint with his brother, Ghiran Isser and his cousin, Mohanlal Isser in mess, business and property. Later in 1934, Babuji Isser separated from his brother and cousin. Some of the properties, irrespective of their valuation and the share of the parties, had been divided, between them at the time of separation, but the properties now subject matter of the suit, comprised of landed properties, movables, money-lending business etc., were left joint. Babuji Isser died on the 28th October 1937, leaving behind his widow, the original plaintiff, and his two daughters, present plaintiffs 1 and 2, Thereafter, the plaintiff asked for partition several times, and the last request was made on the 15th January 1949. But, as the defendants refused to partition the properties in suit, the suit had to be instituted on the 23rd April 1949.

4. Defendant No. 10 as already indicated, has been transposed to the category of plaintiffs, and she also prayed for a separate patti in the event of partition. Defendant No. 5, son of Mohanlal Isser, though filed a written statement, did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 1 alone, namely, the son of the brother of Babuji Isser, contested the suit. His defence is that Babuji Isser died in a state of jointness with the other members of the family, that his widow, Chando, died issueless in the year 1940, that the plaintiff was not Chando Kumari the widow of Babuji Isser, but she was one Jageshwari, sister of the second wife of Mohanlal Isser, that Sabujpari and Sujan Devi were the daughters of Mohanlal by his second wife, and that neither the original plaintiff nor the present plaintiffs were ever in possession of the properties 01 Babuji Isser.

5. The Court below has accepted the genealogy given by the plaintiff, and has held that the original plaintiff was Chando Kumari, the widow of Babuji Isser, and that the present plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the daughters of Babuji Isser and Chando Kumari. It further held that Babuji Isser died in a state of jointness with other members of the family, that the plaintiffs case to the effect that Babuji Isser had separated in 1934 had not been proved, and that the possession of the plaintiff was also not proved. So far as plaintiff No. 3 was concerned, it was held that Mohanlal had died some time before 1934, and as such, his widow, plaintiff No. 3, was not entitled to get n separate patti for her share. On these findings the suit was dismissed.

6. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and the only ground urged in support of the appeal is that the institution of the suit by the widow operates to define the share of Babuji Isser and causes disruption of the joint family, and that the interest of Babuji Isser became defined and separate, and, upon the death of Chando Kumari, the property devolved on his two daughters. It is said that, under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 (Act XVIII of 1937) as amended by (Act XI of 1938), the institution of the suit by the widow of Babuji Isser effected severance in the status of the joint family, and that, on the death of the widow, the original plaintiff, the present plaintiffs 1 and 2, the daughters of Babuji Isser, are entitled to a decree for partition.

7. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act (whi