Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been tiled by the defendants and it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for partition of her one-third share in the disputed properties. That suit was decreed by the trial Court and on appeal, the decree has been affirmed. 2. The following facts are necessary to be mentioned for the purposes of this appeal. One Ram Saroop Sonar had four sons named Raj Kumar, Banersi, Tufani and Akalu. The original plaintiff was the widow of Raj Kumar. She died during the pendency of the suit, and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 1 were substituted in her place ax her heirs and legal representatives. Respondent No. 1 Moset Maracchia was substituted as the daughter of the original plaintiff, and responded Nos. 2 and 3, Kishun Sonar and Dukhani as son and daughter of respondent No. 1. According to the piaintiffs case. Raj Kumar had separated in mess from the other members of the joint family and he had been given some separate kind for cultivation by way of family arrangement. On the allegation that the family was joint, the original plaintiff dawned to haw inherited the share of her husband, Raj Kumar. The substance of the contesting defendants case was follows: It was alleged that the original plaintiff, Mosst. Fulesari was not legally married wife of Raj Kumar. It was alleged that Raj Kumar had executed a deed of relinquishment in 1941 in favour of his brothers and there was a deed of settlement by which Raj Kumar had been given some lands for his maintenance with the stipulation that he would have life interest m the properties, but in case he had any issue, the properties given to him would remain with him and his children. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the family properties and adverse possession was also asserted. After substitution, it was also asserted that respondent No. 1 of this appeal was not the daughter of Raj Kumar, but that she was the daughter of his wifes sisters son. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the family properties and adverse possession was also asserted. After substitution, it was also asserted that respondent No. 1 of this appeal was not the daughter of Raj Kumar, but that she was the daughter of his wifes sisters son. The question whether the original plaintiff Mossll Fulesari was the wife of Raj Kumar was made the subject-matter of an issue in the trial court and it was held that she was the Raj Kumars wife Whether respondent No. 1 Mossll Marchia was the daughter of Raj Kumar and Mossll Fulesari was also made an issue and it was held by the trial court that she was. Both these matters have now become final. In the court of appeal below it had been contended by the defendants appellants that if the suit succeeds, the plaintiffs share would be not more than one-fifth. The court of appeal below has held that the plaintiffs share would be one-third. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has re-agitated the last point; but it is clear that the contention has no force. At the time when this suit had been instituted by Mosstt Fulesari. Akalu and Ram Saroop were dead, and therefore. Mosstt Kulesaris share was one-third. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Lakshmi Perumallu V/s. Krishnavenamma, reported in AIR 1965 S.C. 825 . The second point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is of substance, and in my opinion, the appeal must be remanded to the court of appeal below for reconsideration. It is contended that one of the main points agitated on behalf of the defendants regarding relinquishment by and settlement in favour of Raj Kumar has not been appreciated by the court of appeal below, and that as a matter of fact, this case of the defendants has been accepted while dealing with the question of Mosstt. Fulesaris relationship. According to learned counsel for the appellants, if the defendants case of surrender and settlement be accepted, then the suit for partition must fail. It appears from the judgment of the trial court, under issues Nos. 5 and 6, that, the view taken by that court was that if Mostt. Fulesaris relationship. According to learned counsel for the appellants, if the defendants case of surrender and settlement be accepted, then the suit for partition must fail. It appears from the judgment of the trial court, under issues Nos. 5 and 6, that, the view taken by that court was that if Mostt. Fulesari was the wife of Raj Kumar and Mosstt Marachia was their daughter, there was unity of title and possession between the parties to the suit. It was mentioned that the deed of Bazidawa could not defeat the right of the plaintiffs as it was not a deed of conveyance. All that the court of appeal below has stated is that there is evidence to the effect that the Bazidawa and the settlement were not acted upon. But, it appears from paragraph 7 of the judgment of the court of appeal below, that the court has accepted the case that Raj Kumar had 5 bighas of land in his share which was being cultivated by Mosstt Fulesari. If is, therefore, clear that on one hand the court of appeal below has held that the surrender was not acted upon and on the other, it has been held that Raj Kumar and thereafter, his widow was in possession of 5 bighas of land as the defendants alleged Apparently, the conclusion is based on the record of some other case. The court of appeal below has nowhere considered the actual evidence adduced by the defendants in this suit No doubt the evidence of Mahesh Narain Das. B.D.O. has been considered by the court of appeal below, but the contrary evidence of the defendants, as for instance, the evidence of Banarsi (D.W.4) has not been considered. According to learned counsel for the appellants, if the defendants case of surrender by Raj Kumar and settlement of some land in his favour is true, then the question of adverse possession did arise and in my opinion, the contention is not without force. In my opinion it is a fit case in which the appeal should be remanded for reconsideration. It is however, made clear that the concluded points of relationship mentioned above and the extent of the plaintiffs share win not be re-opened. 4. In my opinion it is a fit case in which the appeal should be remanded for reconsideration. It is however, made clear that the concluded points of relationship mentioned above and the extent of the plaintiffs share win not be re-opened. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged another question of law, to the effect, that, although the suit had been instituted by Mosstt Fulesari, the present plaintiffs could not have been substituted after Fulesaris death. It is contended that as Mosstt. Fulesari had not obtained a decree for partition when she died, the properties claimed by her went back to her husbands brothers and the present plaintiffs had no legal right to continue the suit as representatives of Mosstt, Fulesari. Reliance is placed on the case of Mt. Khatrani Kuer V/s. Smt. Tapeshwari Kuer, reported in AIR 1964 Pat. 261 (FB). Reliance is also placed on the case of Subba Rao V/s. Krishna Prasadam reported in AIR 1954 Mad. 227 . But, this contention is no longer available after the Hindu Succession Act, 1966 (Act 30 of 1966) has come into force. Under Sec.14 of this Act, Mosstt Fulesari must be deemed to have been in possession of one-third share at the properties of the family at the time of the institution of this suit, and after her death, these properties devolved on her daughter who is plaintiff No. 1. The effect of the change in law has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Triloki Mandar V/s. Smt Dukhni Devi, reported in AIR 1966 Pat. 259 . It has been stated in this decision that the question of the impact of Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . upon the rights of Hindu widow or female owner did not arise for consideration in the Full Bench case. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, in Subbalakshmi Ammal V/s. Ramlakshmi Ammal, reported in AIR 1964 Mad. 76 . has dealt with the question which has fallen for decision in the instant case, and I respectfully agree lo his conclusions. In Subbalakshmi Animals case AIR 1964 Mad. 76 the facts were as follows The properties in suit had belonged to one Subba Rao, deceased. His widow instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. In Subbalakshmi Animals case AIR 1964 Mad. 76 the facts were as follows The properties in suit had belonged to one Subba Rao, deceased. His widow instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties. Subba Raos son was dead and he had left a widow. This daughter-in-law was defendant in the suit. Before a preliminary decree could be passed. Subba Raos widow died. Her daughters filed an application to get them selves impleaded as legal representatives of their mother The daughter-in-law objected. The objections were overruled and the daughters were impleaded as legal representatives of Subba Raos widow. The daughter-in-law moved the High Court at Madras in civil revision. The case was dismissed and it was held that the daughters of Subba Rao were entitled to prosecute the suit for partition filed by their mother. Reference was made to two Supreme Court decisions reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 577 and AIR 1962 S.C. 1493 . In my opinion. Subbalakshmi Animals cast AIR 1964 Mad 76 is directly in point and the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, in the instant case must be rejected. It must be held that when Mosstt Fulesari died, she was in possession of one-third share of the properties and on her death, that share devolved on her daughter. In the instant case, whether plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 had been properly substituted along with their mother, in place of Mosstt Fulesari, was not agitated in the courts below and if the point is reagitated. no doubt it will be considered, but it will not be open to the defendants to contend any further that the partition suit should have come to an end on the death of Mosstt Fulesari. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended, from paragraph 17 of the judgment of the trial court, that the property covered by Exhibit B was not the subject-matter of partition in this, suit whereas that property has also been ordered to be partitioned If this question is re-agitated in the court of appeal below, after remand, the question will no doubt be decided. 5. For the reasons given above, the judgment and decree of the court of appeal be low are set aside and the appeal remanded for re-hearing according to the direction given above. 5. For the reasons given above, the judgment and decree of the court of appeal be low are set aside and the appeal remanded for re-hearing according to the direction given above. So far as the costs of this Court are concerned, this appears to be a fit case in which the parties should bear their own costs.