JUDGMENT BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J. 1. These two appeals are by the two sets of defendants against the judgment of affirmance. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. This case has a chequered history. The suit was filed by the four daughters of one Beyader Singh in forma pauperis for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of lands described in schedules I, II, and III of the plaint, which was dismissed by the trial court on 17.7.1956 but on appeal in the High Court the judgment and decree was set aside in First Appeal No. 571 of 1958 and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for retrial. 3. The plaintiffs' case was that one Achraj Singh had a son named Sobhi Singh who was married to Sonjhari Kuer. They had a son named Beyadar Singh, who was married to Nagina Kuer, from whom he had four daughters (the original plaintiffs) and a Son Raja Singh. Raja Singh died on 26.11.1942 leaving behind his father Beyadar Singh, mother Nagina Kuer and the four sisters, namely, the original plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs Beyadar Singh also died on 27.11.1942. Accordingly, Nagina Kuer be came the owner of the entire properties as wife of Beyadar Singh. Nagina Kuer also died on 10.2.1952 leaving behind her mother-in-law Sonjhari Kuer (defendant no.1) and four daughters (the original plaintiffs). There arose a dispute between Sonjhari Kuer on the one hand and the grand-daughters, namely, the plaintiffs on the other. There was a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was decided against the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 1302, 1136 and 606. It was alleged that after the proceeding the plaintiffs were dispossessed on 16.11.1952 and hence this suit. 4. Originally two sets of written statements were filed; one on behalf of Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 and the other on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. But, after remand further two sets of written statements were filed; one on behalf of Chahato Kuer and her five sons defendants 4 to 9 and other on behalf of defendant no. 10 Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 claimed plot nos. 302 and 363 (19 decimals) on the basis of a deed of gift said to have been executed by Beyadar Singh in favour of Buta Singh. 10 Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 claimed plot nos. 302 and 363 (19 decimals) on the basis of a deed of gift said to have been executed by Beyadar Singh in favour of Buta Singh. Defendant no 1 Sonjhari Kuer stated in her written statement that Beyadar Singh had a brother named Peyare Singh and the plaintiffs were the daughters of said Peyare Singh. According to her Beyadar Singh died on 27.11.1942 and Raja Singh died on 28.11.1942 and Nagina Kuer came in possession over the property as the mother of Raja Singh and after the death of Nagina Kuer defendant no. 1 came in possession of the entire properties of the family. She claimed plot nos. 1138 and 616 as her se If acquired properties. According to her defendants 5 to 9 were sons of her daughter Chahato Kuer and not the sons of her sister as alleged by the plaintiffs. Defendant nos. 4 to 9 in their written statement claimed to be the daughter and daughter's sons of Sonjhari Kuer defendant no. l. They claimed the property on the basis of a deed of gift said to have been executed by Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 on 2.11.1956 and asserted their possession on the basis of the said deed of gift. Defendant no. 10 was added as a defendant in the suit after remand and claimed to be a purchaser in respect of 1.78 acres of land by virtue of a sale deed dated 9.2.1956 executed by Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1. 5. It appears that during the retrial of the suit after remand the parties agreed that the plaintiffs were daughters of Beyadar Singh through Nagina Kuer and that Chahato Kuer, defendant no. 4 was the daughter of Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 and further that defendants 5 to 9 were the sons of Chahato, Kuer. The controversy regarding genealogy was thus settled. 6. The learned trial court found (a) that the original plaintiffs are daughters of Beyadar Singh; (b) Chahato Kuer, defendant no. 4 is the daughter of Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 and defendants 5 to 9 are Natis of defendant no. 1; (c) 19 decimals of land was gifted by Beyadar Singh in favour of Buta Singh and the plaintiffs had no. concern nor they were entitled to recover possession over those plots; (d) plot nos. 4 is the daughter of Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 and defendants 5 to 9 are Natis of defendant no. 1; (c) 19 decimals of land was gifted by Beyadar Singh in favour of Buta Singh and the plaintiffs had no. concern nor they were entitled to recover possession over those plots; (d) plot nos. 1136 and 6163 are not the Stridhan properties of Sonjhari Kuer rather these plots were acquired by Beyadar Singh in the name of his mother; (e) Beyadar Singh died on 27.11.1942 and Raja Singh died on 28.11.1942; (f) the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Sonjhari Kuer on 9.2.1956 in favour of Rajeshwar Singh, defendant no. 10 is not genuine and for legal necessity. The sale deed was thus not binding on the plaintiffs; (g) the deed of gift said to have been executed by Sonjhari Kuer in favour of defendants 4 to 9 was not genuine and binding on the plaintiffs; (h) the plaintiffs were entitled to 3/4th share in the suit properties and Chahato Kuer, defendant no. 4, was entitled to 1/4th share with these findings the suit was decreed in part and tile plaintiffs were given a decree for joint possession till their shares were carved out. The plaintiffs were also granted a decree for mesne profits. 7. Two appeals were filed by the two set of defendants. The findings given by the trial court were affirmed by the lower appellate court and the appeals were dismissed with costs. The defendants, as stated above have filed these two second appeals in this court. 8. Mr. R.S. Chatterjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants first submitted that after the death of Raja Singh his grand-mother, namely, Sonjhari Kuer would succeed to the entire properties and not his sisters, namely, the plaintiffs. Learned counsel forgets that on the day of death of Raja Singh his mother Nagina was alive. Beyadar Singh had died on 27.11.1942 and Raja Singh one day after on 28.11.1942. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 introduced important changes in the law of succession. It put the widow as a member of the joint family in the place of her deceased husband and vested the husband's interest in the joint family property under the Mitakshra, though undefined, in the widow immediately upon his death. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 introduced important changes in the law of succession. It put the widow as a member of the joint family in the place of her deceased husband and vested the husband's interest in the joint family property under the Mitakshra, though undefined, in the widow immediately upon his death. It conferred on the widow the same right of claiming partition of the joint family property as any other coparcener entitled to do so. The widow became entitled to the undivided interest of her deceased husband and took the same interest as her husband. When the deceased left a son the widow became entitled to be in the same position as the son. Beyadar Singh as stated above had died on 27.11.1942 leaving behind his widow Nagina Kuer and son Raja Singh. Upon the death of Beyadar Singh, therefore, Nagina Kuer became entitled to half share in the properties, the interest which her husband had and Raja Singh became entitled to the other half. She held the estate with her son Raja Singh for a day when Raja Singh also died on 28.11.1942. Upon the death of Raja Singh Nagina Kuer inherited the other half also held by Raja Singh. She continued in exclusive possession over the entire women's estate till her death on 10.12.1952 half by statutory right having inherited from her husband Beyadar Singh and the other half by survivorship from her son on his death on 28.11.1942, In the case of Mosamat Khatrani vs. Tapeshwari Kuer, A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 261 (F.B.) a Full Bench of this Court held that section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 gives a widow her husband's interest in the property but not his status or position in the joint family. This right she acquires as a statutory right based on the fiction that half the body of the deceased husband survives in her. If the widow asks for a partition the Joint family becomes disrupted and what ever share she gets passes on to her husband's heirs on her death. If s he dies without asking for a partition her interest would pass on to the coparceners of her husband by survivorship. During the life time of the widow statutorily inheriting her husband's interest, right of survivorship of her husband's coparceners is only kept in abeyance. If s he dies without asking for a partition her interest would pass on to the coparceners of her husband by survivorship. During the life time of the widow statutorily inheriting her husband's interest, right of survivorship of her husband's coparceners is only kept in abeyance. If there is no coparcener living at the time of the death of the widow the property' held by her would again pass to her husband's heirs. 9. Nagina Kuer died on 10.2.1952 leaving behind her four daughters, namely, the plaintiffs. She had inherited half share of her husband under section 3 of the 1937 Act in the joint family property. That half share shall revert to the heirs of the last male holder Beyadar Singh namely. the plaintiffs in as much a they were the nearest heirs of Beyadar Singh, their position among the Sapindas being fifth and the position of Sonjhari Kuer (the mother) being the seventh. Nagina Kuer had inherited the half share of Raja Singh as well. Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 shall be deemed to have inherited half out of it and the other half shall devolve on the plaintiffs by survivorship. The courts below were, therefore, right in holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 12 annas share in the entire joint' family property on the death of Nagina Kuer. 10. Mr. Chatterjee relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sitabi vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 343, submitted that Nagina Kuer the widow of Beyadar Singh had only a right of maintenance out of the joint family property On the death of her husband and the daughters could not inherit the property. In that case the plaintiff Smt. Sitabi had become a widow sometimes in the year 1930. Nagina Kuer became widow in 1942 when Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 had come into force introducing certain important changes in the law of succession. The decision in the case of Smt. Sitabi (Supra) does not help Mr. Chatterjee at all. 11. Mr. Chatterjee next submitted that in any view of the matter Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 became absolute owner of half of the property after 1956 with a right to dispose of the property and the deed of gift executed by her in favour of defendant nos. 5 to 9 must be held to be valid. Chatterjee at all. 11. Mr. Chatterjee next submitted that in any view of the matter Sonjhari Kuer, defendant no. 1 became absolute owner of half of the property after 1956 with a right to dispose of the property and the deed of gift executed by her in favour of defendant nos. 5 to 9 must be held to be valid. The Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the deed of gift executed by Sonjhari Kuer was illegal and there is no reason to differ with that finding. Moreover Sonjhari Kuer never became entitled to half shares in the entire property. As discussed above she inherited only 4 annas share in the entire property. In my opinion, the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 12 annas share in the entire property and I am not inclined to differ with this finding. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals which must be dismissed. Both the appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this court. Appeals dismissed.