JUDGMENT A. P. Sen, J. – 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decree of the District Judge, Chhatarpur, dated 6th April 1967, reversing the decree of the Civil Judge, Class II, Chhatarpur, dated 23rd March 1966. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff Gouri-shanker brought a suit against his sister Mst. Mathura and her husband for possession of a house left by his father Bhairon, alleging that after his death the occupation of the defendants was that of licensees. Bhairon admittedly died after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The First Court non-suited the plaintiff, but the decree has been reversed in appeal. 3. The main question for consideration in this appeal is : whether a married daughter who is one of the heirs of her father's estate under section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, can retain possession of the family dwelling house after his death? 4. Shri J. S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that Mst Mathura is a co-owner in possession and not a mere licensee and the suit must, therefore, fail. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the respondent, urges that the suit was based on a licence, and, therefore, any question of title was extraneous; and, alternatively, that under section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, Mst. Mathura has no right of residence in the family dwelling house. 5. The contention that Mst. Mathura was a licensee must be rejected. Under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, a daughter whether married or unmarried, inherits simultaneously with a son and takes a share equal to that of a son. Therefore, even though Mst. Mathura was in permissive possession of the house during the life time of her father Bhairon, she immediately upon his death, succeeded to the property as an heir. A fortiori, it must be held that she acquired half share in the house. Mst. Mathura, accordingly, is a co owner in possession and not a mere licensee. 6. There is no manner of doubt that the house in dispute is a "dwelling house" within the meaning of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. The house was admittedly in the residential use of Bhairon's brother Girdhari, who was blind, and afterwards by Mst. Mathura and her husband Bishal. 6. There is no manner of doubt that the house in dispute is a "dwelling house" within the meaning of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. The house was admittedly in the residential use of Bhairon's brother Girdhari, who was blind, and afterwards by Mst. Mathura and her husband Bishal. It was, therefore, wholly occupied by members of Bhairon's family. Although Mst. Mathura is a Co-owner in possession, nevertheless, she has no right of residence in the family dwelling house. The right of a female heir as regards residence in the family dwelling house is restricted by proviso to section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. Where such female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling house only if she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is a widow. A married daughter has no right of residence in the family dwelling house because her home is in her husband's place. There is a reason why a married daughter has been deprived of this right. 7. The Hindu Succession Act has brought about radical and fundamental changes in the law of succession. The limited estate of female heirs has been abrogated completely. Whatever property is inherited by a woman, whether it be from a male or from a female; by whatever school she is governed, is taken by her as an absolute owner. Furthermore, numerous female heirs have newly been added to the list and their position in the line of heirs has been considerably advanced, and in the case of a widow, mother, and daughter, their position is elevated to that of a son. 8. A further innovation under the new Act is the principle introduced of simultaneous succession of heirs, and some of the female heirs taking together along with the male heirs, as for instance, in the case of daughters, widows, mother and sons taking the property simultaneously. Amongst the primary heirs, there are twelve of them, of whom eight are females. The principle of survivorship has been greately undermined and allowed to survive in an attenuated form facing extinction in the near future. 9. Section 23, read with its Proviso, of the Hindu Succession Act, is the only safeguard for the preservation of the joint Hindu family. Amongst the primary heirs, there are twelve of them, of whom eight are females. The principle of survivorship has been greately undermined and allowed to survive in an attenuated form facing extinction in the near future. 9. Section 23, read with its Proviso, of the Hindu Succession Act, is the only safeguard for the preservation of the joint Hindu family. This section deals with the partition of family dwelling house and the right of residence of the male and female heirs therein. Firstly, the right of female heirs to claim partition of the dwelling house is kept in abeyance and does not arise until the male heirs decide to divide their respective shares therein, or the male line becomes extinct. Secondly, the right of female heirs as regards residence in the family dwelling house is restricted by the proviso. A married daughter is excluded from her right of residence, as she may, under the sway of her husband with moorings elsewhere, start interfering with the affairs of the joint Hindu family property. Her right of residence arises only when she is deserted by or has separated from her husband. 10. Shrivastava, J., while interpreting the section has recently stated : "The reason for making the provisions in section 23 obviously is that female heirs, who pass to another family and have separate residence, will be a disturbing force to the peace of the male members of the family as they are likely to have no interest in the share which they get in the dwelling house and would, in most cases, alienate that share thus introducing strangers in the dwelling house to the inconvenience of the male co-parceners". (See, Sunder Singh v. Mst. Dularinbai and others, 1968 JLJ SN 42. This accords with my view. 11. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100, if certified.