Shamsuddin, J.

1. Defendants 3 to 8 are the appellants. Plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) filed the suit for partition claiming 5/12 shares in the plaint B schedule property. Defendants 3 to 8 contended that since 1st plaintiffs husband Choyikutty died in 1949 without male issues his right over the property reverted to the coparcenary consisting of Thamaran alias Pachu, Ganapathy alias Appu and his male children who are defendants 4 to 7 and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property.

2. It is not disputed that the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Choyikutty, father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of 1st plaintiff died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. Contention of the plaintiffs is that by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (for short the Act) the right which devolved on the 1st plaintiff after death of her husband has blossomed into full right and so the plaintiffs cannot to denied of their share. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendants that the first plaintiff had no possession in the property and so S.14(1) has no application.

3. Both the Courts below held that the first plaintiff was having