The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a Hindu widow to a share of the joint family estate in lieu of maintenance, as per the Mithakshara Law, and the application of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act to convert the widow's limited interest into an absolute interest.

1. This is an appeal by the 5th defendant from the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of a Hindu family.

2. The suit properties belonged to Lakshmana Shenoi, the late husband of the appellant, as his self-acquisitions. Defendants 1 to 4 are their sons and defendants 6 to 8 the daughters. They had another son, Anantha Shenoi, whose widow is the 4th plaintiff, and sons the plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is agreed at the Bar that the 6th defendant has, after the institution of this suit, gone out of the family by marriage, and therefore may be left out of count here.

Lakshmana Shenoi died in 1943. This suit for partition of his estate was instituted in 1947; and the preliminary decree under appeal herein was passed on January 2,1958. The judgment of the Subordinate judge reads:

"The 5th defendant is the widow of Lakshmana Shenoi. Defendants 7 and 8 are unmarried daughters... The widow and the unmarried daughters are to be maintained out of the yield of family properties... Provision has to be made for maintenance of defendants 5, 7 and 8 and for the marriage expense of defendants 7 and 8. The learned counsel for both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted that a share equal to that of a son may be set apart, to the 5th defendant for her maintenance, and the maintenance of defendants 7 and 8 until their marriage. That share is to revert to plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 after death of 5th defendant and marriage of defendants 7 and 8."

The appellant challenges the imposition of a condition of reverter on the share allotted to her.

3. The 2nd defendant died pending suit. The court below has divided his share among his brothers, defendants 1, 3 and 4 even though the appellant, his mother, is alive. But, that part of the decree is not in challenge in this appeal by the mother.

4. Counsel for the appellant contended that in the suit properties the appellant is entitled to a share, equal to that of a son, which, in the light of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, must enure to her absolutely. Counsel for the plaintiffs challenged the widow's right to a share in the joint family properties and contended that it was by the plaintiffs' concession that the appellant has been given a share in this case and that such concession being for an allotment subject to reverter the appellant cannot claim anything more.

5. Lakshmana Shenoi died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. He was a native of the erstwhile State of Travancore and the suit properties were also in that State. The law in pre 1956 days is stated in Mulla's 'Principles of Hindu Law' thus:

"A Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law dies leaving a widow and a male issue. He leaves self-acquired property. The male issue will inherit the property subject to the obligation to maintain the widow out of that property." (Vide: Illustration A to Para.559).

6. That the appellant is entitled to maintenance out of her late husband's properties is not disputed here. The contention of the plaintiffs is that she is not entitled to a share of the properties in lieu of her right to maintenance.

Mulla's 'Principles of Hindu Law' states the rule in that respect thus:

"A mother cannot compel a partition so long as the sons remain united. But if a partition takes place between the sons, she is entitled to a share equal to that of a son in the coparcenary property." (Para. 316)

7. Mr. Sivasankara Panicker contended that the above rule applies to coparcenary property only and that the sons inheriting the self-acquired properties of a Hindu father took them as co-heirs, and not as members of a coparcenary. The contention is obviously untenable.

In Mulla's 'Principles of Hindu Law,' the learned author says categorically:

"Thus, if A holds separate or self-acquired property, on his death it becomes joint family property in the hands of his male issue." (Notes to Para.222).

"A son, a grandson whose father is dead and a great-grandson whose father and grandfather are both dead, all succe