Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not retrospective.

G.N.Prasad, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on the allegation that the suit properties belonged to the joint family, of which her husband Khaderan Sahu was a member at the time of his death. First Appeal No. 285 has been preferred by defendants 3 to 5 and First Appeal No. 294 has been preferred by defendants 1, 9, 10 and 11.

2. It appears from a genealogy attached to the plaint that the parties are members of the family of one Tilak Sao who left behind two sons, Bhattoo Sao and Karoo Sao. The branch of Karoo Sao is represented by his son Bhogal (defendant No. 2) and Bhogals sons, defendants 12 to 14, Bhattoo had two sons, Horil and Bhalu; Bhalu being the father of Khaderan, the husband of the plaintiff. The daughter of the plaintiff, Mt. Parwati Devi alias Paro Devi, is an intervenor defendant in the suit. The remaining defendants, namely, defendants 1, 3 to 11 and 15 represent the branch of Horil.

3. The case put forward by the plaintiff was that her husband died in the year 1939, and, therefore, after his death, she was entitled to 1/3rd share in the entire joint family properties asserted by her.

4. The defence put forward by the contesting defendants was that Khaderan had died some time in 1933, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the joint family properties. Her right was only that of receiving maintenance out of the joint family properties. The further case put forward by the defendants was that there was a complete partition in the family of the defendants in the year 1956. So far as the plaintiff was concerned, it was said that in lieu of her claim for maintenance from the family, she had been paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 in lump sum, and out of the said money she had been doing money lending business and had also purchased a house for her occupation.

5. The court of first instance accepted the defendants case that Khaderan, the husband of the plaintiff, had died sometime in 1933, and, therefore, under the provisions of the Hindu Law, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any share in the joint family properties; but in view of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Lateshwar Jha V/s. Mt. Uma Ojhain, AIR 1958 Pat 502, the plaintiff would be entitled to the same interest which her husband had in the joint family properties, and, as such, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain a suit for partition. On the question of share, the court below held that half share in the joint family properties belonged to defendants 2, 12, 13 and 14, while in the other half share half interest belonged to the heirs of Horil and the remaining half share, that is to say, 1/4th share in the entire joint family properties belonged to the plaintiffs husband. According to the Court below, therefore, both the plaintiff and her daughter, the intervenor defendant, were entitled to 1/4th share of Khaderan and the same was divisible half and half between the plaintiff and the intervenor defendant. As regards the arrangement arrived at between the defendants in 1950, the Court below has held that it is not binding upon the plaintiff us she was not a party to the said transaction, though it might be, a good transaction as between the parties thereto. The Court below also did not accept the defendants case that a sum of Rs. 5,000 was given to the plaintiff in lieu of future maintenance. Upon these findings, the Court below has decreed the plaintiffs suit for partition in part and directed a preliminary decree to be drawn up in respect of 1/8th share in the joint family properties in favour of the plaintiff and in favour of the intervenor defendant respectively.

6. It is against this, preliminary decree for partition that the two appeals have been preferred by the two sets of contesting defendants. In First Appeal No. 285, a cross-objection has also been preferred by the plaintiff claiming that the share to which she was entitled should