A female Hindu who is in possession of property on the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, becomes the absolute owner of that property under Section 14 of the Act.

Mahapatra, J.

1. In this appeal by the two plaintiffs, the correctness of a genealogy, according to which the plaintiffs claimed true to the properties mentioned in the two Schedules A and B given in the plaint and asked for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits, is in question.

2. One Siaram Tewarj had three sons Padaratn, Ramchandar and Gangaram. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 belong to the last branch, defendants 1 and 2 to the branch of Padarath and the other defendants, defendants 3 to 20 being to Ram Chandars line. The plaintiffs genealogy as given in the plaint and reproduced in the judgment may be briefly indicated to show the nature of contest between the parries. Padarath Tewari had three sons Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar. They became separate in status between 1909 and 1911. The survey settlement operations were completed in the said villages by 1912. Ramratan had two sons Rajbhukhan and Roshan. Rajbhukhan died in 1946 and Roshan had died in 1928-29 and defendant No. 1, Manbirta was his widow. Nauratan had a son Lawat who died in 1916. Nauratan died in 1920. Ramcharitar died issueless in 1954. Defendant No. 2, Prema was the widow of Lawat. Plaintiffs asserted that after there was separation in status between Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar the latter two reunited and sometime after the re-union there was a partition by metes and bounds of the properties Belonging to the three branches, and in that partition schedule A of the properties was allotted to Ramratan, and schedule B properties jointly to Nauratan and Ramcharitar. On the death of Nauratan in 1920, his son having predeceased him, Ramcharitar alone succeeded by survivorship to the whole or the B schedule properties. When Ramratan died in 1921-22, his two sons Rajbhukhan and Roshan came in possession of Schedule A as surviving coparceners. On Roshans death, Rajbhukhan became the sole surviving coparcener and Roshans widow Manbirta, defendant No. 1, was entitled to maintenance. Defendant No. 2, Prema, widow of the predeceased son of Nauratan, was similarly entitled, when Ramcharitar succeeded to B schedule as the sole surviving coparcener. On the death of Rajbhukhan in 1946, Ramcharitar succeeded to his estate Schedule A in 1946-4/. Thus he became legal owner to both Schedules A and B propertied But he could not take possession of Schedule A on the death of Rajbhukhan as he was then in Patna under treatment and became afflicted by paralysis. Defendant No. 1, Roshans widow cams in possession of that. When Kamcharitar himself died in 1954, defendant No. 2, widow of predeceased son of Nauratan (deceased brother of Ramcharitar) took possession of B schedule properties. Plain" tiffs claimed that as Ramcharitar was the legal owner or both A and B as stated above, on his death, his nearest feversioners were to succeed to his estate and plaintiff No. 1 and the father of the plaintiff No. 2 were the only two such persons. Defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to maintenance only and had no legal right to any of the properties. Other defendants including defendants 3 and 4 are remote reversioner and could not be entitled to the suit properties in preference to the plaintiffs.

To indicate the relative nearness of the plaintiffs to the common ancestor Siaram Tewari, plaintiffs stated that Siarams third son Gangaram had two sons Imrit and Jeobodh. One of Imrits son was Ramkawal and his son was Sheoji, plaintiff No. 1. Jeobodh had a son Sital whose son was Ramraj and Ramraj who had three sons including plaintiff No. 2, Bachan, was surviving at the time of the death of Ramcharitar. Thus in the branch of Gangaram Tewari, plaintiff No. 1 and Ramraj, father of plaintiff No. 2, were the only two surviving members and they were in fifth degree to the common ancestor Siaram.

I have said that defendants 3 to 20 belong to Ramchandars branch and admittedly all of them, except defendants 3 and 4, are lower in degree to defendants 3 and 4, and those two defendants, accor