JUDGMENT - Deshpande, D.B. J.: - The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to one-third share or to two annas share which is awarded to him by the trial Court and it arises in the following manner. 2. One Venkatrao had four sons, namely, Gangadhar, Nagorao, Govindrao and Kisanrao. Admittedly, all of them were separated and were living separately. The dispute now centres round the property left by Kisanrao. Annapurnabai was the widow of Kisanrao and she died without any issue on 29-11-1961. Defendants 1 to 6 are Sons of Govindrao and plaintiff is the son of Nagorao. Gangadhar's branch is represented by his son's widow Bhagirathibai who is admittedly having no share in the property left by Annapurnabai. The plaintiff alleged that he has one-third share in the property left by Annapurnabai and he alleged further that he was in possession of that share and he filed this suit for perpetual injunction contending that he was being obstructed by the defendants. 3. The defendants resisted plaintiffs claim and they contended that plaintiff had only two annas share and had no one-third share. They denied that plaintiff was in possession of the land as alleged by him. There are other contentions but we are not concerned with those contentions as they are not raised in this second appeal. 4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had one-third, share and he also failed to prove his possession. He held that the defendants had fourteen annas share and thereby impliedly held that plaintiff had only two annas share. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit with costs. 5. The plaintiff went in appeal. The learned District Judge, Parbhani held that plaintiff was entitled to only two annas share and so he dismissed the appeal with costs. This has given rise to the second appeal. 6. Now admittedly Annapurnabai died on 29-11-1961 i.e. after the coming into force the Hindu Succession Act. Now succession to her will be governed by Sections 15, 16 and 11 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is cot disputed that at the time of the death of Annapurnabai, the only person from her husband's family who were alive were the plaintiff and the defendants. All of them are brother's sons of Kisanrao, the husband of Annapurnabai. Now succession to her will be governed by Sections 15, 16 and 11 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is cot disputed that at the time of the death of Annapurnabai, the only person from her husband's family who were alive were the plaintiff and the defendants. All of them are brother's sons of Kisanrao, the husband of Annapurnabai. Thus, the learned District Judge has rightly pointed out that the succession is per capita and not per stirpes. This is clear from Mulla's Hindu law Fifteenth Edition. The succession will be governed by Section 11 of the Hindu Succession Act, because Annapurnabai died intestate. Now, the brother's sons fall in Item No. IV, Class II of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, by virtue of Section 11 of the Hindu Succession Act, all of them take equally and that is why the distribution is per capita and not per stirpes. Thus, the decision of the Courts below is correct and there is no merit in this appeal. , 7. Result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. Order set aside: Matter remitted back to the that Court ----