( 1 ) ). THIS is an appeal by the original plaintiff challenging the dismissal of her suit by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat by judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 89/97.

( 2 ) ). IT is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is a female and she has filed suit in her capacity as daughter of one Madaribhai Bhagabhai Dhodiya, although it is admitted that she is married. She had sued her brother for partition of ancestral property by metes and bounds, where agricultural lands were the subject matter of this partition suit.

( 3 ) ). THE Trial Court after framing appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, considered the entire evidentiary material on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/2 share of the suit property as claimed, that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties which were the subject matter of the suit were joint family properties, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the partition claimed, and that the defendant has proved that the plaintiff has no right title or interest in the suit property.

( 4 ) ). THE learned counsel for the appellant has sought to contend before us that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous in the light of the evidentiary material on record. We have not examined these contentions pertaining to the appreciation of evidence on record in as much as we are of the opinion that the suit suffers from a fundamental defect and that the plaintiff has no right to sue for the reliefs claimed in the suit.

( 5 ) ). IT is the plaintiffs own case that she is the daughter and that the defendant is the son of their common father Madaribhai. It is the plaintiffs own case that the agricultural land which are the subject matter of the suit are ancestral property. It is the plaintiffs own case that she is entitled to 1/2 share in the said property. On the basis of these averments and assertion in the plaint, she has sued for partition of the said property by metes and bounds.

( 6 ) ). WHAT requires to be noted is that the plaintiff has not sued merely for a declaration of a share in what is alleged to be ancestral property, and she has not sued for joint possession with the defendant brother in respect of such ancestral property. What she has in fact sued for is for partition of the property by metes and bounds and possession and delivery of her 1/2 share in the lands in question. 6. 1. THE fundamental question which arises is as to whether a female who is only a member of a H. U. F. , and not a coparcener, can sue for partition by metes and bounds. The answer is clearly in the negative. These are the fundamentals of the Hindu Law and do not require any elaborate discussion. However, reference may be made to Mullas Principles of Hindu Law (17th Edition), Articles 307, 315, 316, 317 and 333 (3 ). 6. 2. LEARNED counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that the General Hindu Law stands abolished and or repealed inasmuch as the Parliament has enacted specific Acts dealing with various aspects of Hindu Law. He refers to such Acts as Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There cannot be any doubt that where the parliament has enacted specific Acts on specific subjects, which formerly formed part of the General Hindu Law, the specific provisions of these specific Acts will override the principles laid down in General Hindu Law to that extent. However, by no stretch of imagination can it be suggested that the General Hindu Law stands abolished as a whole and or repealed only on account of enactment of these specific and particular Acts dealing with only certain aspects of Hindu Law. 6. 3. LEARNED counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and in this context learned counsel contended that only the right of a female heir to claim partition in respect of