JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been brought before us for decision upon a reference made by Venkataramiah, J under S. 6 o,f the High Court Act, 1961. It appears that the learned Judge has felt some doubt on the correctness of the view taken by this Court in Melagiriyappa vs. Lalithamma, 1960 Myslj. 394. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are these: the suit out of which the appeal arises, was instituted by the appellants challenging the alienations of their family properties made by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. In 1943, the husband of the first plaintiff died. Defendant-1 was his father. Upon the death of his son defendant-1 became the sole surviving coparcener and their joint family properties passed on to him subject to the plaintiffs' right to a share as provided under S. 8 (1) (d) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act (Mys Act No. 10 of 1933 ). The plaintiffs, however did not ask for separation of their share. They remained as members of the joint family of which defendant-1 continued as a kartha. ( 3 ) ON 9th May, 1956, defendant 1 sold items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule in favour of defendant 2. On 20th Decr 1958, he sold items 3 to 6 in favour of defendant-3, under Exhibit D5 for Rs. 10,000. Out of this amount, some antecedent debts incurred by defendant-1 were discharged. In all those properties, the plaintiffs were undisputedly entitled to 3/8 share and defendant-1 was entitled to 5/8. Challenging the validity of the said alienations, the plaintiffs brought the suit for partition and possession of their 3/8 share in the family properties. ( 4 ) THE suit was not contested by defendant 2, defendant 3, however, while resisting the suit, contended, inter alia, that the alienation in his favour was binding on the plaintiffs, as it was for legal nesessity of the family and also to discharge the antecedent debts. ( 5 ) THE principal issue before the trial Court was, whether defendant 3 has proved that the alienation in his favour was for legal necessity, and if so, whether the alienation was binding upon the plaintiffs. ( 5 ) THE principal issue before the trial Court was, whether defendant 3 has proved that the alienation in his favour was for legal necessity, and if so, whether the alienation was binding upon the plaintiffs. The trial Court, on considering the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the said alienation was valid to the extent of Rs. 5,00 only, as that amount was utilised for discharging the antecedent debts. Accordingly a preliminary decree was made declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/8 share in all the suit properties with a right to recover the mesne profits. The trial Court also directed the plaintiffs to make some payments to defendant 3 in proportion to their share in the family debts. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the above decree, the plaintiffs appealed to the court of the Civil Judge, Mysore, and defendant 3 preferred Cross-objections. The learned Civil Judge while dismissing the appeal, has partly allowed the Cross-objections. He however, upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court that the alienation under Ext D5 was binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 5,000 but he made an equitable partition and dismissed the suit against defendant 3, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the entire items 7 and 9. The plaintiffs are not satisfied with the appellate decree. Hence this Second Appeal ( 7 ) IT may be stated that defendant 1 died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Court. Consequently, the dispute now remains only as between the plaintiffs and defendant 3. The right claimed by the plaintiffs rested on clause (d) of S. 8 (1) of the Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act No. X of 1933 ). S. 8 (1) reads:"8 (1) (a ). At a partition of joint family property between a person and his son or sons, his mother, his unmarried daughters and the widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them. (b) At a partition of joint family property among brothers, their mother, their unmarried sisters and the widows and unmarried daughters of their predeceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them. (b) At a partition of joint family property among brothers, their mother, their unmarried sisters and the widows and unmarried daughters of their predeceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them. (c) Sub-sections (a) and (b) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a partition among other co-parceners in a joint family. (d) Where joint family property passes to a single co-parcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the right to share of the classes of females enumerated in the above subsections. "the scope of S. 8 (1) was considered by the former High Court of mysore in several cases. In Dakshinamurthy v. Subbamma, 45 Myshcr. 102. Reilly, c. J. , observed that the right of a widow to share in the property of her husband's joint family arises at the moment when her husband's death leaves in. the family a sole surviving coparcener and she has a right to the separation of the share and the possession of it the moment her husband died. While approving the above observations, in Pogakit venkatachaliah v. Pogaku Ramalingaiah, 49 Myshcr. 456, Venkataramana Rao, CJ,, said:" In our opinion, clause (d) virtually makes the female members specified therein co-sharers along with the 'single coparcener' and they will be entitled under sub-section (5) of the said section to have their shares separated off and placed in their possession. But until that is done they would have a vested interest therein. " ( 8 ) THE nature of the right of a female under S. 8 (1) (d) was again considered by a Bench of this Court in B. K. Narayanan Singh vs. C. M. Ramakumar, 1960 Myslj, 235, K. S. Hegde, J. , as he then was observed that the entire joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship and the female member continues to be a member of the joint family with the sole coparcener as the kartha of that family and the right of the sole surviving coparcener. in respect of the family property could be subjected to the right of the female member to claim and obtain her share whenever she deems fit. The question was re-examined by a Bench of this Court in S. Melagiriappa v. Lalithamma. in respect of the family property could be subjected to the right of the female member to claim and obtain her share whenever she deems fit. The question was re-examined by a Bench of this Court in S. Melagiriappa v. Lalithamma. Narayana Pai, J as he then was, speaking for the Bench observed, that until by partition and separation of share belonging to the female member of the joint family, the entire property stands impressed with the character of joint family property and remains in the possession and control of the single male coparcener as the manager of the family and he has in respect of the entire property the same power of alienation for legal necessity as the manager of a joint family has under the ordinary law of Mithakshara; but he cannot exercise his absolute right of disposition under the said Law so as to affect the female relative's share. It was also observed that the female relative has a right of impeaching the alienation made by the single coparcener as being unsupported by legal necessity or family benefit or as being beyond the powers of the manager under the ordinary Mithakshara Law. ( 9 ) FROM the conspectus of these cases, what becomes clear is that the single co-parcener has a right to alienate the share of a female relative for legal necessity. ( 10 ) IT may be pointed out that in all these cases, the alienations concerned were prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession act. But in the present" case, the alienation under Ext. D5 in favour of defendant-3 was after the Act came into force. That, in our opinion, makes a world of difference in the position of law, and therefore, unnecessary to consider the correctness of the view taken in Melagiriappa's case (1 ). So far as the alienation in favour of defendant-2 is concerned, the problem presents no difficulty since she did not contest the suit. ( 11 ) THE Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17th June, 1956. The Act is a codifying enactment and has made far reaching changes in the structure of the orthodox Hindu Law of Inheritance. The Act confers upon Hindu female full rights of inheritance and sweeps away all limitations on her powers or on her estate that were imposed under sastraic Hindu law. The Act is a codifying enactment and has made far reaching changes in the structure of the orthodox Hindu Law of Inheritance. The Act confers upon Hindu female full rights of inheritance and sweeps away all limitations on her powers or on her estate that were imposed under sastraic Hindu law. It has, beyond all doubts, converted her limited estate into an absolute estate. While considering the scope of Sec. 14 (1) which confers such absolute rights on the Hindu female, the Supreme court observed in RBSS. Munnalal v. S. S. Rajakumar, AIR. 1962 SC. 1493, that even a right declaring in favour of a Hindu female under a preliminary decree in a partition suit was regarded as a right to property. Again in Mangal singh v. Smt. Rattno, AIR. 1967 SC. 1786, at page 1790, the Supreme Court observed :" On the language of S. 14 (1) therefore, we hold that this provision will become applicable to any property which is owned by a female Hindu, even though she is not in actual, physical or constructive possession of that property. "in the present case, the plaintiffs are in a better position. Their possession was joint and actual. Their right to a share, as observed by the supreme Court in Nagendra Prasad v. Kempananjamma, AIR. 1968 SC. 209, is independently of a partition, and not to be restricted by assuming partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs' interest in the family properties became absolute upon the coming into force of S. 14 (1) of the Act and the sole surviving coparcener had no right to alienale it. The absolute property vested in a female member cannot be disposed of by the kartha of the family. ( 12 ) IN this context, it may be useful to refer to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Govindaram Mihamal v. Chetumal Villardas, air. 1970 Bom. 251, while dealing with the scope of the proviso to S. 6 of the Hindu succession Act. Deshmukh, J, at page 261 said:" When an outsider to a joint family gets a vested interest in a part of the property, the fact that that share is yet to be worked out and a particular piece of property or share in every piece of property is to be handed over to him or her in lieu of the share, does not seem to be of any consequence. The property of the joint family is at that stage partly vested in members who are already members of the coparcenary and partly in some heirs who have nothing to do with the joint family as such. At any rate, the unmarried daughters, who may be members of the family, inherit the interest by succession under the Hindu Succession Act, and not under the provisions of the Customary Hindu Law. To that extent, they have an independent right which is vested in them and may be continued to be enjoyed jointly until physical separation takes place. With that result following one thing seems to be clear. The representative character of the kartha is clearly affected. He cannot represent that property which vests in a person other than a coparcener. " ( 13 ) WE are therefore of the opinion tha,t the alienation made by defendant-1 to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs must be held to be invalid. ( 14 ) THIS takes us to the nature of the relief to be granted to the plaintiffs. As noticed earlier the appellate Court has dismissed the suit against defendant-3. It has, however, permitted the plaintiffs to retain items 7 to 9. The appellate Court perhaps thought that 5/8 share of defendant-1 would cover the properties under Ext. D. 3 and the remaining suit properties would be sufficient to meet the 3/8 share which the plaintiffs are entitled to. But, dt seems to us that the appellate Court has committed an error in working out the equitable partition. We find that items 7 to 9 cannot be equated to the plaintiffs' share in Items 2 to 6 sold to defendant-3 under Ext. D5. Item 3 measures two acres six guntas; item 4 two acres 24 guntas; Item 5 two acres 36 guntas and Item 6 is a pucca residential house, whereas Item 7 hardly measures 5 guntas; item 8 four guntas and Item 9 is undisputedly a dilapidated country tiled house. These particulars are found from the report of the Commissioner dt. 11-2-1975. The Commr has also valued separately every item of the suit properties. The report further shows that the total valuation of Items 3 to 6 comes to Rs. 44,000 and that of Items 7 to 9 is Rs. 4,500. These particulars are found from the report of the Commissioner dt. 11-2-1975. The Commr has also valued separately every item of the suit properties. The report further shows that the total valuation of Items 3 to 6 comes to Rs. 44,000 and that of Items 7 to 9 is Rs. 4,500. Items 1 and 2 which were the subject matter of alienation in favour of defendant-2 has been valued at Rs. 10,000. From these particulars it is seen that the division made by the appellate Court is manifestly inequitable. ( 15 ) IN the result, and for the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal. While reversing the decree of the Courts below, we decree the plaintiff's suit declaring that they are entitled to 3/8 share in all the suit properties and defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to 5/8 share in the properties respectively sold to them. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover from defendants 2 and 3 the mesne profits attributed to their share from the date of the suit. The plaintiffs are liable to discharge the aebts incurred by defendant-1 before 17th June, 1956 in proportion to their share. The trial Court shall work out these details in the final decree to be passed. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances, we direct that each party shall bear his or her own costs throughout. --- *** --- .