R.Bhaskaran, J.

This second appeal is filed by the 4th plaintiff in a suit for partition. The question for consideration in the second appeal is with regard to the shares in the plaint schedule property to which the parties are entitled. The facts are not in dispute. The parties are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law. Sankaranarayana Iyer was the common ancestor. Gopala Iyer and first defendant were his children. Plaintiffs are the children of Gopala Iyer. Defendants 2 to 7 are the wife and children of the first defendant. Gopala Iyer died on 24-11-1978. The suit was filed in 1984 for partition of the ½ rights of Gopala Iyer in the coparcenary property by the legal heirs of Gopala Iyer. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants had contended that the plaintiffs right if any was barred by adverse possession. That contention was found against and it was confirmed by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court earlier allowed the appeal and remanded the case to consider the question of shares to which the parties are entitled. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit for ½ share to the plaintiffs. In appeal, the lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree and directed that the plaintiffs are entitled to only 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the children of Gopala Iyer and Neelakanta Iyer are also members of the coparcenary when a division is to take effect it should be on per strips principle. She relied on Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law, page 440, 15th Edition, wherein it is stated that when each branch takes per stripes (that is, according to the stock) as regards every other branch, but the members of each branch take per capita as regard each other. This rule applies equally whether the sons are all by the same wife or by different wives. Illustrations given at page 441 reads as follows:

(a) A dies leaves a son B, two grandsons C1 and C2, three great-grandsons F1, F2 and F3 and one great-great-grandson K.

Here there are four branches of the joint family represented respectively by the four sons A and their descendants. E’s branch takes nothing as K, the only surviving member of that branch, is outside the limits of the coparcenary, being beyond the fourth degree of descent from A, the common ancestor. The joint property will therefore be divided per stirpes into three parts corresponding to the remaining three branches, each branch taking 1/3. The result is that B will take 1/3, C1 and C2 will take the one-third share of C equally between them, each taking ½ of 1/3, i.e., 1/6 and F1, F2 and F3 will take the one-third share of D equally between them each taking 1/3 of 1/3, i.e., 1/9.

It is therefore contended that the reasoning of the lower appellate court that all the sons of the first appellant had acquired the right by birth and therefore each of them are entitled to 1/8 share in the coparcenary property is incorrect. Through it is not disputed that sons of Neelakanta Iyer are also the members of the coparcenary they can take equal share out of ½ of the plaint schedule property as members of the branch of Neelakanta Iyer. The lower appellate court relied on the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975, as per which it is to be taken that there has been a partition as on the date of coming into force of the Act and therefore when Gopala Iyer died in 1978 he had only 1/8 share and the first defendant and other male children are also entitled to one share each. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to my notice Sec. 4(2) of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. Sec. 4 of the Act reads as follows:

4. Joint tenancy to be replaced by tenancy in common:-

All 1.All members of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law holding any coparcenary property on the day this Act comes into force shall with effect from that day, be deemed to