JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— It will be easier, with the help of the following pedigree, to understand the point involved in this appeal:

Khandappa died on June 27, 1960 leaving him surviving his wife Hirabai, who is the plaintiff, two sons Gurupad and Shivpad,. who are defendants 1 and 2 respectively, and three daughters, defendants 3 to 5. On November 6, 1962 Hirabai filed Special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1963 in the court of the Joint Civil judge, Senior Division, Sangli for partition and separate possession of a 7/24th share in two houses, land, two shops and movables on the basis that these properties belonged to the joint family consisting of her husband, herself and their two sons. If a partition were to take place during Khandappas lifetime between himself and his two sons, the plaintiff would have got a 1/4th share in the joint family properties, the other three getting a 1/4 the share each. Khandappas 1/4th share would devolve upon his death on six sharers: the plaintiff and her five children, each having a 1/24th share therein. Adding 1/4th and 1/24th, the plaintiff claims a 7/24th share in the joint family properties. That , in short, is the plaintiffs case.

2. Defendants 2 to 5 admitted the plaintiffs claim, the suit having been contested by defendant 1, Gurupad, only. He contended that the suit properties did not belong to the joint family, that they were Khandappas self-acquisitions and that, on the date of Khandappas death in 1960 there was no joint family in existence. he alleged that Khandappa had effected a partition of the suit properties between himself and his two sons in December 1952 and December 1954 and that, by a family arrangement dated March 31, 1955 he had given directions for disposal of the share which was reserved by him for himself in the earlier partitions. There was, therefore, no question of a fresh partition. That, in short, is the case of defendant 1.

3. The trial court by its judgment dated July 13, 1965 rejected defendant 1s case that the properties were Khandappas self-acquisitions and that he had partitioned them during his lifetime. Upon that finding the plaintiff became indisputably entitled to a share in the joint family properties but, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shiramabai v. Kalgonda, 66 Bom LR 351 : (AIR 1964 Bom 263) the learned trial Judge limited that share to 1/24th, refusing to add 1/4th and 1/24th together. As against that decree, defendant 1 filed first appeal No. 524 of 1966 in the Bombay High Court, while the plaintiff filed cross objections. By a judgment dated March 19, 1975 a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed defendant 1s appeal and allowed the plaintiffs cross-objections by holding that the suit properties belonged to the joint family, that there was no prior partition and that the plaintiff is entitled to a 7/24th share. Defendant 1 has filed this appeal against the High Courts judgment by special leave.

4. Another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Rangubai Lalji v. Laxman Lalji, 68 Bom LR 74 had already reconsidered and dissented from the earlier Division Bench judgment in Shiramabai Bhimgonda, (AIR 1964 Bom 263). In these two cases, the judgment of the Bench was delivered by the same learned Judge, Patel J. On further consideration the learned Judge felt that Shiramabai was not fully argued and was incorrectly decided and that on a true view of law, the widows share must be ascertained by adding the share to which she is entitled at a notional partition during her husbands lifetime and the share which she would get in her husbands interest upon his death. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has based itself on the judgment in Rangubai Lalji endorsing indirectly the view that Shriamabai was incorrectly decided.

5. Since the view of the High Court that the suit properties belonged to the joint family and that there was no prior partition is well-founded and is not seriously disputed, the decision of this appeal rests on the