( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff. A suit was instituted in the Revenue Court under section 226, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 by Rani Roop Kunwar for the recovery for profits for the years 1341, 1342 and 1343 Fasli of her share of property of Mohal Bhup Singh Kabza No. 1 in village Rachhoha against Diwan Gokaran Singh son of Diwan Chet Singh, the lambardar of the Mohal. The defence raised on behalf of Diwan Gokaran Singh was that the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Th. Thamman Singh died in a state of jointness with the defendant, and the property in suit being joint ancestral property, the plaintiff could not succeed to it, and the property devolved on Diwan Gokaran Singh by a right of survivorship under the rules of the Mitakshara law. The Revenue Court framed an issue, namely, whether the family ceased to be a joint family about 20 years ago in the life-time of Th. Thamman Singh, and the Revenue Court referred that issue to the Civil Court for a finding. When the issue was received by the Munsif of Fatehabad at agra for determination, the learned Munsif considered that the main question for decision was whether Th. Thamman Singh had separated from his brothers and nephews prior to his death, and whether there did occur a disruption in the joint status of the family prior to Th. Thamman singhs death. The learned Munsif gave a finding on 14-10-1941, holding that the plaintiffs theory of disruption and separation, as alleged by her, was correct. The Revenue Court accepted that finding, and after a determination of the other issues, granted the plaintiff a decree in the sum of rs. 472/14/3 with proportionate costs and interest. Diwan Gokaram Singh, the defendant, preferred an appeal against that decision. During the pendency of that appeal (Revenue Appeal No. 9 of 1946 of the Court of Civil Judge, agra) Rani Roop Kunwar died. In her place were substituted Sri Balmukundji Mahraj, as her legal representative under a will alleged to have been made by Rani Roop Kunwar in his favour and also Kunwar Yatendra Singh, the brother of Diwan Gokaran Singh as a pro forma party. The Civil Judge of Agra, by his decision dated 18-9-1948, reversed the finding of the learned munsif by holding that there was no separation or partition in this family, and that the two brothers, namely, Th. Thamman Singh and Diwan Chet Singh, so far as the property in village rachhoha was concerned, had continued to form a joint Hindu family. The learned Civil Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. In Second appeal the only point that has been argued before me by learned counsel for the appellant is that the view of the lower appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that there was no separation in the family, was incorrect.

( 2 ) FOR purposes of this case we may trace the pedigree of the parties from Diwan Bhup Singh. He had two sons, namely, Rai Bahadur Chet Singh and Th. Thamman, Singh, Chet Singhs sons are diwan Gokaran Singh, the appellant and Kr. Yatendra Singh pro forma respondent. Rani Roop kunwar, the plaintiff was the widow of Th. Thamman Singh, Diwan Bhup Singh died long ago. Diwan Chet Singh, the father of Diwan Gokaran Singh died on 1-9-1920. Th. Thamman Singh died on 29-9-1934. The family held an impartible estate known as the Parna Estate governed by the rule of primogeniture where the eldest of the issues of the last holder of the estate succeeds to him as the absolute owner thereof, and the junior members of that family have only a right of maintenance from the estate. Diwan Bhup Singh was such an absolute owner of that estate under that rule. After his death his eldest son, Diwan Chet Singh, the father of the defendant became the owner of the estate. His younger brother Th. Thamman Singh acquired only a right of maintenance from that estate and was not entitled to the estate itself. This impartible estate was assessed to a land revenue of about Rs. 9000/- a year. The amount of maintenance allowance which