JUDGMENT P.K. Tare, J. 1. This case comes before us for decision upon a reference made by one of us (Tare J.) upon the following question : "Whether a woman having interest in the joint family property by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, can challenge an alienation made by the manager of a joint Hindu family." 2. The genealogy of the parties is as follows : 8. It would be relevant to consider the nature of the widow's interest under Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Wowen's Right to Property Act, 1937. So far as this Court is concerned, the nature of the interest is indicated in the Division Bench case of Tukaram Raghoji v. Gangi Nivruti 1956 Nag LJ 770 : (AIR 1957 Nag 28) and the Single Bench case of Bhagabai v. Bhaiyalal, decided by Hidayatullah C. J., namely, that the widow is not a co-parcener and that her interest is undefined and fluctuating, till an actual partition is demanded. All the High Courts are, therefore agreed that the interest that she gets under the Act is a special statutory right. But the question is whether she gets thereby the right to challenge an alienation effected by the sole surviving co-parcener, who acts as manager of the joint Hindu family. 9. Even before the enactment of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, the females of a joint Hindu family had the right to be maintained out of the joint family property. If a charge for maintenance were created on the property before alienation, they were entitled to pursue the property in the hands of an alienee. The obligation to maintain was extended to the Government, when it took the estate by escheat or by forfeiture, as was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Golab Koonwar v. Collector of Benares 4 Moo Ind App 246. What the Act of 1937 did was to confer upon a widow the same share as a son in her husband's separate property under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, and the same interest as her deceased husband in the joint family property under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Her right was to be known as a Hindu woman's estate with a further right to claim a partition as a male owner. Her right was to be known as a Hindu woman's estate with a further right to claim a partition as a male owner. It is true that her interests under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act remains undefined and fluctuating till a partition is actually claimed Even so, the interest, when it devolves upon the widow vests in her rights in praesenti even though, as observed in AIR 1954 Pat 318 (supra), the interest was a mere spes successionis during the life time of her husband. 10. Section 2 of the Act provides that notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply where a Hindu dies intestate. Therefore, in order to give effect to the Act, the provisions themselves have to be interpreted notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary. It is true that by operation of Section 3(2) a Hindu widow does not get the status of a co-parcener, but she certainly gets the same interest as her deceased husband. Under the rule of Hindu law the right to challenge an alienation effected by a manager is the special right of a co-parcener, but in giving effect to Section 3(2), this rule has to be ignored. The nature of her right has been specified by Section 3(2), which also prescribes the limitations imposed on that right. No more limitations can, therefore, be imported into the section from the general Hindu law. Subject to the limitation imposed by Section 3(3), a widow has the same interest as her deceased husband. If her deceased husband had the right to protect the property against mis-management, waste or unjustified disposal of the family property, we see no reason to deny her the same right for the purpose of protecting her interest. 11. An alienation of joint family property by a sole surviving co-parcener, not for legal necessity certainly reduces' the share of interest that has been conferred upon a widow by the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937. in addition to her former rights or maintenance and residence out of the joint family property. 11. An alienation of joint family property by a sole surviving co-parcener, not for legal necessity certainly reduces' the share of interest that has been conferred upon a widow by the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937. in addition to her former rights or maintenance and residence out of the joint family property. It was for this reason that the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in : ( AIR 1954 Bom 47 ):ILR (1953) Bom 958 (supra) and Mudholkar J. of the Nagpur High Court in 1956 Nag LJ 27 (supra), upheld the widow's right to challenge the alienation effected by the manager of a joint Hindu family. If this right were not to be upheld, a sole surviving co-parcener would be able to defeat the widow's share or interest as the case may be, by alienating all the family property for no legal necessity and the widow would be left without any remedy whatsoever. In our opinion the view taken by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court as also Mudholkar J. of the Nagpur High Court is in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937. 12. Having uphold the second respondent's right to challenge the alienation, we have next to consider the relief that she may be given. In the present case both the Courts below found that there was no legal necessity. What, therefore, the defendant got by the transfer is the undivided interest of Darasram in the alienated property which can only be determined by a suit for partition. In these circumstances, Mst. Narbadia should he placed in possession of the alienated property leaving the defendant to enforce his right of partition separately. 13. In the view that we have taken, the question is answered in the affirmative. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/.