1. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2-petitioner challenging order dated 10.09.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge, 3, Rohtas, rejected petitioners petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Title Suit no.393 of 2006.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs- Opposite Parties Ist Set for declaration that sale deeds dated 24.07.2006 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2 was illegal, void, without any legal necessity, without consideration, without authority and not binding against the plaintiffs with respect to Schedule B land of the plaint and also for a decree of partition of their 3/4th share in Schedule A land of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs.

3. Defendant no.2- petitioner, who happens to be the father of the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties Ist Set, filed his written statement asserting inter alia that the suit for partition filed by the daughters during the life time of their father for partition is not maintainable in view of the specific provisions of law. On the same ground defendant no.2 filed a petition dated 07.08.2007 in the court below under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code for rejection of the plaint claiming that the suit was barred by specific provisions of law. The said petition has been rejected by the learned court below by impugned order dated 10.09.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed.

4. In the instant matter, the relationship between the petitioner and Opposite Parties Ist Set is not in dispute, whereas the disputes are three folds, namely as to whether female members of a joint family can legally bring a suit against their father for partition of the ancestral property and that whether defendant no.2-petitioner also had two sons who had died earlier and that whether the sale deed executed by defendant no.2-petitioner in favour of defendant no. I- Opposite Party 2nd Set was legal and valid So far the instant civil revision is concerned, it is limited only with respect to the first issue in dispute as to whether female members of a family specially the daughters can legally bring a suit for partition against their father claiming to be coparceners.

5. Originally the Hindu Law with respect to Mitakshara school, to which the parties admittedly belong, specifically provided that only male members of a family including the son of a coparcener can be coparcener and a daughter cannot be a coparcener in the ancestral property. It is further provided under Clause 332 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla (19th Edition) that only a coparcener or a purchaser of the interest of a coparcener is entitled to institute a suit for partition.

6. Furthermore the Hindu Succession Act as enacted in the year 1956 (Act XXX of 1956) specifically provided devolution of interest of coparcenary property in Section 6 thereof which reads follows:-

"6.Devolution of interest of coparcenary property.- When 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 member: of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that , if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.

Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

Explanation 2.- Nothin