The share of a son in the joint family property on the death of his father and mother is determined according to the principles of Hindu law, including the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. This second appeal, preferred by the defendant/appellants, raises purely a legal controversy requiring determination of shares to which the parties would be entitled on partition in accordance with principles of Hindu Law.

2. This Court has admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law only :--

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Lalchand is to be granted 9/32nd share in the suit property?"

3. The facts in so far as relevant for the decision of this appeal are beyond controversy at this stage. The genealogical tree is admitted. It is as under:--

Khuba

|

Mardansingh

(Defendant No. 6)

(died on 30-6-1981)

|

-----------------------------------------

| |

Manvobai Putrobai (Paintiff No. 1) (Defdt. No. 1) (Died on 19-4-1984)

| ---------------------------------------- | | | | | Lalchand Somatsingh Dannala Prabhulal Ramchandran (Paintiff No. 1) D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5

Khuba was the original owner. He had died much before the institution of the suit. He had a son Mardansingh. Mardansingh had two wives -- Manvobai and Putrobai. Mardansingh had one son -- Lalchand -- from Manvobai and four sons -- Somatsingh, Dhannalal, Prabhulal and Ramcharan -- from Putrobai. The suit was instituted on 6-4-1977 by Manvobai and Lalchand as Plaintiffs impleading Mardansingh, Putrobai and their four sons as defendants. The suit property consists of a house and an agricultural holding. Mardansingh expired on 30-6-1981 and Manvobai also expired on 19-4-1984, both during the pendency of these proceedings. It is not disputed that on the date of the institution of the suit, as also on the dates on which Mardansingh and Manvobai expired, the succession was governed by the principles of Hindu Law.

4. Both the Courts below have found the suit property to be ancestral property of Mardansingh as having been inherited from Khuba. Both the Courts below have further found that the family was joint and the suit property was in joint possession and enjoyment of the parties and hence liable to be partitioned.

5. Mardansingh having expired before the trial Court, his name was struck off the array of defendants. So also on the death of Manvobai, the plaintiff No. 1, before the trial Court, her name was struck off the array of the plaintiffs, and then Lalchand alone proceeded with the suit as sole plaintiff.

6. The trial Court held that on the death of Mardansingh, his two wives and 5 sons in all 7 members would be entitled to 1/7th share in the property. On Manvobai's death her 1/7th share would devolve on her son Lalchand. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of Lalchand declaring him entitled to 2/7th share in the suit property.

7. The lower appellate Court held that on the date of the institution of the suit, the joint Hindu family property would be deemed to have been notionally partitioned and each of the 8 members of the family on the date of the institution of the suit would be entitled to 1/8th share in the property. On the death of Mardansingh on 30-6-1981 his 1/8th share would be devided into 6 shares each of the sons taking l/6th share in the property and the 2 wives collectively taking 1/6th share. Thus on the death of Mardansingh Lalchand became further entitled to 1/6th of 1/8th i.e. 1/48th share in the property on the death of Mardansingh, Manvobai too had succeeded to 1/2 of l/6th of 1/8th share of Mardansingh, i.e., to a 1/96th share over and above 1/8th share of her own which she was already holding of her own. This 1/8th + 1/96th share of Manvobai on her death devolved upon Lalchand alone. In the opinion of the lower appellate court Lalchand was entitled to 1/8th + 1/48th 4- 1/8th + 1/96th = 27/96, i.e. 9/32nd share in the joint family property. Having thus calculated the share of the plaintiff Lalchand, the lower appellate Court superseded the decree of the trial Court declaring him entitled only to 9/32nd share in the suit property followed by a direction for par