1. The appellant/original defendant No.1 has filed this Second Appeal under section-100 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/1982 on 29th October, 1982 partially allowing the said Appeal by partially confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jetpur in Regular Civil Suit No.295/1978.

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 17.06.1983 and following substantial questions of law were framed for determination and consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether the learned Assistant Judge committed a substantial error of law in interpreting and applying section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, on the facts and circumstances of the present case?(ii) Whether the learned judge committed a substantial error of law in awarding maintenance to the respondent, Bai Valubai, daughter of deceased Naran Vira, from the properties which were in the hands of the appellant, Bhikha Khoda?(iii)Whether the learned judge committed a substantial error of law in holding that the first respondent was a dependent of deceased Naran Vira and that she was entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Law from the property of her father and grand-father?(iv) Whether the learned judge committed a substantial error of law in not holding that the first respondent was not entitled to claim any maintenance as she was already married and her father had died before 1956? (v) Whether the learned judge committed a substantial error of law in not considering and holding that the suit against the appellant alone was not maintainable and that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties ?

3. The brief facts giving rise to this Second Appeal are that the plaintiff Aher Valubai alias Ranbai Naran has filed the suit against her brother's son, Aher Bhikha Khoda for maintenance from her father Naran Vira's properties for herself and her minor son Samat. Plaintiff Valubai was married and was residing with her husband at Rajkot. But her husband was murdered. Her husband has no property worth anything. In the same way, her father-in-law has also no other estate. She had no source of income to maintain herself. She has got minor son Samat. She, therefore, went to reside with her mother, defendant No.2 Sonbai, at Khirasara, and she used to do labour work to maintain herself and her son from that labour charges. She has contended in the suit that her father Naran Virabhai had good deal of properties with agricultural land, houses etc. After death of her father, the entire property fell in the hands of her brother Khoda Naran who was born due to previous wife of Naran Virabhai. Valubai was born due to remarriage of her father Naran Vira with Sonbai, present defendant No.2. Her brother Khoda Naran also died and subsequently all the properties have fallen in the hands of Bhima Khoda. The properties in the hands of defendant No.1 Bhima Khoda are described in para-5 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff Valuben, under the provisions Hindu Law, as a daughter, she is entitled to be maintained from the properties of her father Naran Vira and defendant No.1 is bound to provide for maintenance of herself and her minor son Samat. She has, therefore, prayed that she would be awarded for herself and her minor son monthly maintenance of Rs.300/-.

4. Defendant No.2 Sonbai Naran has filed the written statement at Exh.23. She has fully supported the case of the plaintiff Valubai and had contended that Valubai has no source of income from her husband or from her father-in-law. Defendant No.1 Bhikha Khoda had received all the properties of Naran Vira and Khoda Naran in his share. In other words, the properties which are ancestral properties and admittedly properties of Naran Vira devolved upon Khoda Naran. After death of Naran Vira and when Khoda Naran died, the suit properties have been captured by defendant No.1