G.C.Garg, J.

1. Heard. Admittedly, the property in dispute which is anoestcal, was inherited by Harbilas from his father Jagan Ram alias Jagan Nath. Hartbilas has two sons, namely, defendant Krishan Kumar and plaintiff Ashok Kumar besides a daughter Sushila Krishan Kumar filed a suit Somewhere in the year 11980 against his father Harbilas for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in 1 possession of the property in question which fell to his, share in a family settlement, The suit was decreed on account of the statement made, by Harbilas.

2. Ashok Kumar the other son of Harbilas filed a suit for declaration that decree dated 21.1.1980 relating to the property in-dispute was illegal, against law and was not binding on his rights. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 4.9.1992 dismissed the suit. However,, the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. This is how one of the defendants has filed the present appeal .

3. During the course of hearing it could not be disputed that Krishan Kumar filed the previous suit against. Herbilas based on a family settlement and on the allegation that the property in dispute fell to his share in the family settlement and that the settlement was oral and that Ashok Kumar was not made a party previous suit.

4. A Hindu even if he is joint, can possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. No other member of the copardonary, not even his male issue, acquire any interest in it by birth. The owner is entitled to sell, gift or bequeath by will to any person he likes. Such property is not liable to partition amongst coparcenars and on the death of the holder there of, it passes on to his heirs under the Hindu Succession, Act and not by survivorship to the surviving coparcenars.

5. A property held by a female Hindu after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act is the. exclusive property of such female Hindu and such property can be disposed of by her by sale, gift or bequeath by. a will to a person of her choice.. In the event of her death it shall devolve on her heirs in accordance with the provision made m the Hindu Succession Act. Situation may however, he different, if a female Hindu holds life interest in a property under a testamentary disposition, as life estate. Property" field by female Hindu cannot be the subject matter of family settlement during her life time though the heirs may partition the same after her death or may have some other arrangement as may be permissible in law, after acquiring a interest in that property.

6. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. The share of such coparceners increases by deaths and decreases by births. In other words, a coparcener has an interest in the coparcenery property by birth without any specific share till such time the coparceners, decide to partition the property. On such decision he acquires a definite, share in the property though partition may not have been effected by meats and bounds. Females are not coparceners under the Mitakshara law though, on partition, mother is entitled to a share equal to that of son and to hold that share separately even from her husband.

7. Property in which a coparcener has an interest by birth, broadly speaking, is the ancestral property and devolves by survivorship on the male members, in equal shares besides properties acquired by the members of a joint family with the aid of ancestral property. Such property also acquires the status of the joint family property. Separate property of a coparcener thrown into the common hatch patch also acquires the character of joint family property. The above property in general is known as coparcenery, property in which a coparcener has an interest by birth and on partition is entitled to a share.

8. On a partition between the members of a joint