1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit. Originally, the plaintiffs claimed 1/6th share in the suit property. The suit property is a house in the town of Laheriasarai. One Janki Mahto had three sons, namely, Juri Mahto, Chulhai Mahto and Lakshmi Mahto. The heirs of Juri Mahto are the plaintiffs in this case. Lakshmi Mahto is defendant No.1 and his two sons, namely, Satyanarain Mahto and Rajendra Mahto are defendants 1/a and 1/b (appellants). Chulhai Mahto died in 1960 leaving behind two daughters, namely, defendants 3 and 4 and a widow who is defendant No.5. There are two daughters of Janki who are defendants 6 and 7. Defendant No.2 was Most. Mushni, widow of Janki. Most. Mushni died during the pendency of the suit.

2. Admittedly, there was a partition by a registered deed of partition (Ext.3) dated 11-7-1950. By this registered partition deed the properties of Janki Mahto were partitioned among Janki Mahto, Juri Mahto, Chulhai Mahto and Lakshmi Mahto. Each got 1/4th share in the joint family properly. The house, which is in dispute in the present suit, was allotted to Janki Mahto. Admittedly, Janki Mahto died in the, year 1959. Most. Mushni was living with him. After the death of Janki, Most. Mushni executed a registered sale deed (Ext. B2-I) dated 20-11-1963 in favour of defendants 1/a and 1/b (appellants before this Cort).

3. On these facts, the court below granted 1/6th share to the plaintiffs, 1/6th to Lakshmi, 1/6th to defendants 3, 4 and 5, 1/6th to defendant No.6, 1/6th to defendant No.7 and 1/6th to Most. Mushni. In other words, Janki died leaving behind six heirs, namely, heirs of Chulhai (defendants 3, 4 and 5), Lakshmi (defendant No.1), plaintiffs Most. Mushni (widow of Janki), defendant No.6 (daughter of Janki) and defendant No.7 (another daughter of Janki). In other words, the court below granted equally 1/6th share to each of the abovementioned six sets of heirs of Janki in the house in question. On these facts, the court below also held that the sale deed executed by Most. Mushni in favour of defendants 1/a and 1/b is a genuine document and for consideration. It is for this reason that the Court below held that the 1/6th share held by Most. Mushni will devolve on defendants 1/a and 1/b (the appellants).

4. Against this judgement, defendants 1/a and 1/b have preferred this appeal to this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in view of Expln.2 of S.6 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) Most. Mushni was the sole heir of Janki. In other words, he means to say that the sons, who separated from Janki in 1950, will not be entitled to inherit any share after the death of Janki. According to him, the only heir of Janki will be Most. Mushni. We are unable to accept his contention. General law of inheritance is mentioned in S.8 of the Act. According to S.8, "the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter :-

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified; in class I of the Schedule;..." If there exists class I heir of the Schedule, then the property left by the father will equally be inherited by all the heirs mentioned in class I of the Schedule. According to S.8, the six heirs of Janki will each get 1/6th share in the property left by him. In other words, his three sons, his two daughters and Most. Mushni will each get 1/6th share in the property left by, Janki. In other words, the house, which had fallen to the share of Janki, would be equally divided amongst all the six heirs of Janki according to S.8 of the Act. Section 8 is general in nature. Sec. 6 of the Act is an exception to S.8. Sec. 6 provides that if a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. There is a proviso to S.6 which p