JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Smt. Ranidevi against an order of the District Judge, Kotah refusing to implead her as a party in partition suit on the ground that she had no interest in the suit properties.
(2.) THE suit properties belonged to one Shri Ram who died in 1938 leaving three sons and four daughters including the present applicant. THE present suit for partition was brought on 16. 10. 51 by one of the grand sons of Shri Ram. THE daughters of Shri Ram were not impleaded as defendants in the suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 22. 5. 56. THEreafter the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force on 17. 6. 56 and Ranidevi moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that she had acquired an interest in the suit properties by the coining into force of the Hindu Succession Act. THE application was rejected by the learned District Judge. Against that order the present application has been filed. On behalf of the applicant reliance is placed on two S. B. decisions of the Calcutta and Patna High Counts. In Hiralal Roy vs. Kumed Behari (1) one A died in 1946 leaving a widow, a son and a daughter. In a suit for partition of the properties left by A's father who died intestate a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The preliminary decree declared the widow's share in the joint properties to be that of a Hindu widow as prescribed by Hindu Law and directed that the share to be allotted to her be held by her as a Hindu widow during her natural life. On 5. 5. 57 the widow died. On her death the son and the daughter as her heirs having become equally entitled to the property left by her, a notice was taken out by the daughter for herself being added as a party and for determination of her share in the property in suit and for passing of a new preliminary decree. The question involved in considering the applications was whether sub. sec. (1) of sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied. It was held that assuming that the widow continued to have Hindu Women's Estate after the Succession Act came into force on 17. 6. 55 and that she did not acquire any absolute interest in the property to be allotted to her tinder the decree, still on her death on 5. 5. 57, as the property reverted back to the estate of her husband A it would be herited by the heirs of A at the date of the death of the widow, the limited owner. On that date the heirs of A under sec. 8, Hindu Succession Act 1956 were the son and the daughter. They would therefore equally inherit that part of the property which was allotted to the widow. It was observed that succession to that part of the estate of A which was allotted to the widow opened on the date of the widow's death and the heirs of A on that date would, in law, inherit the property. The application of the daughter succeeded. In the above case the widow became entitled to the property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937. That Act did not confer any rights on the daughter. This case is therefore of no help to the applicant. The other case relied upon on behalf of the applicant is that of Lateshewar Jha Vs. Uma Ojhain (2 ). It related to the property previously owned by one Bapuji Jha who left two sons Ramdhari Jha and Bachan Jha. Bachan Jha had five sons out of whom one Achki Jha died leaving a widow who was defendant No. 3. The plaintiff in the partition suit was Ramdhari's son. Defendant No. 8 claimed a share in the properties. Babuji Jha, Bachan Jha and Achki Jha all died before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force. There was some controversy as to whether Achki Jha died before the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 came into force or after it had come into force. If Achki Jha died after the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 came into force then his widow would get her husband's share in the property. Under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 the widow's interest has been limited as laid down in sec. 3 (3) of the Act namely that she holds the estate as a limited owner. On the passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 she became a full owner under sec. 14 (1) of that Act. So far as this part of the decision is concerned it does not help the applicant. But the learned Single Judge also held that even if Achki Jha died before the coming into force of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 the widow was entitled to a share in the properties as in his opinion sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was retrospective. I am unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the latter part of his decision. The question is whether there is anything contained in the Hindu Suqcess:on Act which would divest the properties from those in whom it had already vested on the opening of the succession before the Hindu Stxces> ion Act came into force. In the case which his Lordship had before him if Achki Jha died before the coming into force of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 the property would vest on his death in his other heirs. Those heirs could not be divested of this property on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and that the property could not therefore vest in Achki Jha's widow.
(3.) IN the present case on the death of Shri Ram in1958 his property vested in his three sons. Their sons cannot be divested of any part of that property by virtue of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. The daughters consequently cannot get any share out of Shri Ram's property after the coming into force of that Act. The applicant thus cannot claim any share in the properties of Shri Ram. She is not a proper party to the partition suit and her application was rightly rejected. The revision application is accordingly rejected. In the circumstances of the case 1 direct that parties shall bear their own costs. .;