K.M. Dayal, J.

1. THIS appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The admitted facts of the case are that the decree holder respondents obtained money decree against one Jagdish Prasad. Jagdish Prasad was the member of the Hindu Joint Family which owned the disputed house. The family consisted of Shiv Charan father, Ganga Devi mother and four sons namely Jagdish Prasad, Radhey Shyam, Satya Prakash and Jai Prakash. The property is admitted to be ancestral.

2. THE decree holder sought to attach l/5th share allegedly belonging to Jagdish Prasad in the undivided property. An objection was filed by Radhey Shyam, appellant that Jagdish Prasad would be entitled to 1 /6th share in the Joint Family Property on partition being effected. Consequently, the share of Jagdish Prasad that could be attached by the decree holder would be only l/6th and not l/5th. Both the courts below have held that the mother of Jagdish Prasad, Smt. Ganga Devi could not be entitled to any share in the joint property and consequently the share of Jagdish Prasad would be 1/5th. It is not disputed that if the mother also claimed partition the share of Jagdish Prasad would become l/6th.

Learned counsel for the