Judgment B. P. Jha, J. 1. Plaintiff Kuldip Mahton preferred second appeal before this court. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the deeds of gift (Exts. A series) are illegal, null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that keuldip Mahton (Plaintiff) and Sukar Mahton were brothers, and they were members of the joint Mitakshara family. Sukar Mahton died on 5th March, 1993. Sukar Mahton died leaving behind five daughters and his widow. It b said that before his death Sukar executed three deeds of gift on 25th ferary, 1963 in favour of his daughter, Srimati Keshori Devi (defendant no.2 ). Shibalak Mahton (defendant no.1) is the husband of defendant no.2. Defendant no.3 Most. Patia is the wife of Sukar Mahton. It is said that on 25th February, 1963 Sukar Mahton executed deeds of sift bearing nos.1972 ext. A) 1973 (Ext. A/1) and 1974 (Ext. A/2 ). It is these deeds of gift which have been challenged in the present suit. 3. On these facts, both the courts below concurrently held (1) that the deeds of gift (Exts. A series) were not executed by Sukar and these deeds are fraudulent, illegal and inoperative, and (2) that Sukar died in a state of joint-ness with the plaintiff. The lower appellate court held that in view of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act), the widow and the daughters would inherit the joint property held by sukar. 4. On these facts, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that view of the fact that Sukar died in jointness with Kuldip (Plaintiff), Kuldip is entitled to inherit the properties of Sukar by survivorship. 5. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. On these facts, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that view of the fact that Sukar died in jointness with Kuldip (Plaintiff), Kuldip is entitled to inherit the properties of Sukar by survivorship. 5. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is relevant to quote section 6 of the Act : "when a male Hindu dies after the commencement to this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara co-parcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the co-parcenary and not in accordance with this Act : provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative, specified in that class who claims, through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. " In my opinion, the proviso governs the main section. Ordinarily under section 6 of the Act, the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members after the death of the co-parcener subject to the exception as laid down under the proviso. The proviso of section 6 provides that the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall not devolve by survivorship upon the surviving member on the death of a coparcener, if the deceased had left behind a female relative specified in class I or male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative. In the schedule, first class female heirs are daugther, widow, etc. In the present case, Sukar died leaving behind five daughers and the widow. The concurrent findings of the courts below are that Sukar died in a state of jointness with kuldip in 1963. It it is so, the daughters and the widow are entitled to inherit the property left by Sukar as they are class I female heirs on the basis of the proviso to section 6 of the Act. In my opinion, the lower appellate court rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming the property left by sukar, is not maintainable in view of section 6 of the Act. 6. In my opinion, the lower appellate court rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming the property left by sukar, is not maintainable in view of section 6 of the Act. 6. The law may be briefly stated thus : The Mitakshara law recognises that the properties may devolve by survivorship or by succession. Previous to the enactment of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 the daughters were notpentitled to inherit the property by succession in a Mitakshara joint family. After the death of a coparcener the propery used to devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcener. The Hindu Succession Act has brought a revolutionary change in the concept of Mitakshara Joint Hindu family. Now, by virtue of proviso to section 6 of the Act, special right has been conferred upon the female heirs specified in class I of the Schedule. If a coparcener dies in a family governed by Mitakshara law, the propertsy would devolve upon the female heirs along with the son of the deceased. It is for this reason that the old principle of survivorship has undergone a great change in view of proviso to section 6. The proviso to section 6 lays down an exception to section 6. The proviso provides that if a coparcener dies leaving behind female heirs specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative who claims through such female relative, such specified heirs shall inherit by succession the property of a coparcener in a Mitakshara joint family. The intention of them Legislature was to give benefit to the female heirs or a male relative who in claims through such female relative specified in class I. Keeping this view in mind, the lower appellate court was justified in holding that Kuldip had no eause of action to file the suit in respect of the property left by Sukar in the joint family. In view of the fact that Sukar died in the year 1963, the proviso to section 6 of the Act was applicable to his case. If it is so, Sukars brother, namely, the plaintiff Kuldip has no cause of action in respect of the properety left by sukar. It is the admitted position that Sukar died leaving behind the daughters and his widow. If it is so, Sukars brother, namely, the plaintiff Kuldip has no cause of action in respect of the properety left by sukar. It is the admitted position that Sukar died leaving behind the daughters and his widow. If it is so, the property left by Sukar in the joint family will be inherited by the daughters and the widow as they are the female heirs specified in class I of the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act. 7. Defendant 1 and 2 have also filed a cross-objection against the judgement of the lower appellate court. I am unable to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court for the simple reason that the two courts have concurrently held that the three gifts (Exts. A/1 and A/2) are illegal and inoperative. Hence, I dismiss the cross-objection. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed ; but there will be no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed.