The court clarified that the rights of male members in a Hindu undivided family are dependent on actual partition rather than birth alone, defining inheritances under applicable statutes.

1. The fight was between a brother and his sister, the children of one Lakshmana. They were quarrelling over the property left by their father. The brother sued for partition. The Court below passed the impugned preliminary decree. Both parties are dissatisfied. Therefore, the appeal by the first defendant sister and cross objection by the legal representatives of the plaintiff brother.

2. There are seven items in plaint schedule property. All belonged to one Koraga, their grand father. Item Nos. 1 to 6 are the properties obtained by him on partition in his family, evidenced by Ext. A1 partition deed. Item No. 7 is the self acquired property acquired in the year 1940. The former will be here in after described as the joint family property and the latter will be described as the self acquired property for convenience sake. Koraga and his wife Ammini Amma had only son Lakshmana, father of the quarrelling brother and sister.

3. The case of the plaintiff, the brother was that he was born before the death of Koraga in the year 1952. This was before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act . Therefore, he obtained an equal right in the joint family property equally to the grand father and father, applying Mithakshara Hindu Law. So, out of the entire joint family property 1/3rd right belongs to him and the remaining 2/3rd alone shall be available for partition, in which case he being one among the two children of Lakshmana was entitled to half share in the remaining 2/3 share. Thus altogether he was entitled to 2/3 share (1/3 + 2/3 x 2) in the joint family property.

4. This contention is resisted by the first defendant/appellant, sister submitting that even though plaintiff was born before the death of Koraga, he being the grand son could have obtained an interest in the joint family property only within the interest of his father Lakshmana. Therefore he could not have obtained 1/3rd right in the joint family property equal to his father and grand father; but could have obtained only a right equal to his father within the right his father had in the joint family property. In other words, plaintiff could have at the best obtained only 1/4th right in the joint family property and the remaining alone was available for partition. That remaining should have been divided into two between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

5. As regards the self acquired property of Koraga, it is contended by the plaintiff that 1/2 the right therein devolved on Lakshmana, the only son of Koraga. The other remaining 1/2 devolved on his wife Ammini Amma, in the light of S.3(1) of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act . On the moment, half of self acquired property devolved on Lakshmana, the Plaintiff being son will become entitled to a right in that property, he being the son of Lakshmana, as in relation to him it is an ancestral property. Therefore, that half over which he acquires interest is not available for partition. The interest, that was devolved upon Ammini Amma, the widow of Koraga also later devolved on Lakshmana, the only son. Thus out of the entire extent in item No. 7, 1/4th right was exclusively available for the plaintiff and the remaining 3/4th alone was available for partition. But even in excess of that available interest Lakshmana had gifted it in favour of defendant No. 1 as per Ext. B1 and a small extent had been sold away by him as per Ext. B10 in favour of defendant No. 2. Thus there is nothing available for partition at present as the remaining extent in item No. 7 forms part of the exclusive right the plaintiff has over it.

6. In counter to this contention it is submitted by the counsel for the first