Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies only to an undivided member of a coparcenary at the time of death.

ISMAIL, J.:- The plaintiffs in O.S. No.18 of 1966 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur are the appellants herein. There was an undivided Hindu family consisting of one Kalyanasundaram Pillai, his son Sabapathy Pillai and his son Srinivasam Pillai, the first defendant in the suit. There was a partition between them as evidenced by Ex.A-1 dated 21-4-1955. Under that partition, the joint family properties were divided into four schedules, A, B, C and D; A schedule was allotted to the share of Kalyanasundaram Pillai, B schedule was allotted to the share of Sabapathi Pillai, C schedule was allotted to the share of the first defendant Srinivasam Pillai, and D schedule was allotted to Sabapathi Pillai and Srinivasam Pillai jointly. Sabapathi Pillai died on 5th December, 1962. The plaintiff's-appellants are his widow and three daughters, the first defendant is his son and the 18th defendant is his mother. The appellants herein instituted the suit claiming that to the half share in the D schedule which belonged to Sabapathi Pillai, they alone were exclusively entitled and neither the first defendant Srinivasam Pillai, nor the 18th defendant had any share therein. On the other hand, the case of defendants 1 and 18 was that all the six persons were entitled to inherit the share of Sabapathi Pillai in the D schedule properties in equal shares. From what we have stated above, the suit as well as the present appeal is concerned with Sabapathi Pillai's half share in the D schedule properties and the reference to the shares of the parties will be relatable to that half share only. The learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur held against the appellants and decreed the suit for partition of their 4/6th share, allotting 1/6th share to the first defendant and another 1/6th share to the 18th defendant. It is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged before us in the present appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit.

2. Though before the trial court, two contentions were put forward, namely, that 18th defendant had relinquished her share in the suit properties (which means the half share of Sabapathi Pillai in D schedule properties) in favour of the plaintiffs and that by a family arrangement entered into between the first defendant Srinivasam Pillai and the plaintiffs, the first defendant also had given up his share in Sabapathi Pillai's half share in favour of the plaintiff's, they are not repeated before us and the only contention that is advanced before us is on the basis of the constructions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central Act 30 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as "the Act"'.

3. For the purpose of understanding the controversy it is desirable to set out Section 6 of the Act in full and the same is as follows:-

"When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act;

Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative the interest of die deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation I:- For the purpose of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been alloted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation II: Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to clai