S. Jagadeesan, J.

1. Theappeal has been filed against the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned single Judge dated 7.10.1999 in C.S.No. 384 of 1999.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit claiming partition and for allotment of 2/5th share on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to one Ethirajulu and Andal - the parents of the appellants and the respondents. The appellants herein -defendants 1 and 2 in the suit had no objection for the share of the first respondent herein -the first plaintiff in the suit. So far as the second respondent herein is concerned, the appellants objected on the ground that she married a Muslim by converting herself into Islam and as such, she is not entitled for the share. The other objection of the appellant's that B-Schedule property being a residential house and the appellants herein being the male members of the Hindu Joint Family, till they opt for partition, it is not open to respondents 1 and 2 herein to seek partition.

3. The learned single Judge, after considering the contentions raised by both sides, ultimately by his judgment dated 7.10.1999, granted a preliminary decree as prayed for by respondents 1 and 2 herein. The third respondent, who is the third defendant in the suit remained ex parte. As against the same, the appeal has been filed.

4. Before us also, only two objections were contended by the learned counsel for the appellants stating that the second respondent having married a Muslim and converted into Islam, she is not entitled for any share, as she has to forego the share, in view of the conversion to other religion. So far as B-schedule property is concerned, it was contended that the property cannot be divided, since the same is a residential house and consequently, the findings of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the conversion to other religion will not disentitle the second respondent herein to inherit the property of her parents. The learned Single Judge rightly held so. So far as B-schedule property is concerned, apart from the residential house, the same consists of vast area of vacant site and the Commissioner had also filed a report stating that the property is divisible. When that be so, it is not open to the appellants to contend that the property is indivisible and that till they opt for partition, respondents 1 and 2 cannot seek partition in respect of the same.

6. From the above submissions, the questions arise before us for consideration are:

i. Whether the Hindu, by conversion, can forego the right of inheritance? and,

ii. Whether the residential house, even though divisible by metes and bounds, cannot be divided at the instance of female heirs?

7. So far as the first question is concerned, the learned single Judge referred to Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and held that the bar for inheritance is only in respect of legal heirs of the convert. The individual, who convert himself to other religion from Hinduism, will not forego the right of any inheritance. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Asoke Naidu v. Raymond S. Mulu, AIR 1976 Cal. 272.

8. Section 26 of the Act, as rightly held .by the learned Single Judge, prohibits the children, of the convert from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives. The said provision is as follows :

"Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, children to him or her after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens."

9. Barring this Section, the other disqualification for inheritance is the murderer from inheriting the property of the person murdered. So, if the murder is for