CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, M. G. MUKHERJI, JJ. ( 1 ) THE principal point in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, has rightly dismissed the plaintiff-appellants claim for partition in respect of Holding No. 7, Gopal Banerjee Lane, Howrah comprising inter alia, a two storied pucca building. On or about 15th of October, 1965 Biswanath Pyne died intestate leaving as his heirs, his widow, Smt. Urmila Pyne, the appellant above named, and Amiya Kumar Pyne, the respondent, his only son by his pre-deceased wife and the aforesaid Holding No. 7, Gopal Banerjee Lane which was the dwelling house of the deceased had been inherited by his said two heirs. The said dwelling house was and still in occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff, Smt. Urmila Pyne, had instituted in the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge, Howrah a suit for partition by metes and bounds of her 8 annas share in the said dwelling house at 7, Gopal Banerjee Lane and also of several other items of movable and immovable properties. The defendant respondent had contested the plaintiff's prayer for partition of the said dwelling house on the ground that in view of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaintiff who was one of the female heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule of the said Act was not entitled to herself claim partition of the said dwelling house. For deciding this appeal to set out the cases of the respective parties with regard to other items of property which were also subject-matter of the said partition suit. As already stated, the learned Subordinate Judge 3rd Court, Howrah, has held that the plaintiff's suit for partition of the said dwelling house was barred under section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He, however, has passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of several items of property which were declared to be joint. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed in respect of the remaining items on the ground that she had failed to establish her claim in respect of them. ( 3 ) MR. He, however, has passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of several items of property which were declared to be joint. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed in respect of the remaining items on the ground that she had failed to establish her claim in respect of them. ( 3 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the special provision respecting the dwelling house contained in section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act has no manner of application in case a Hindu intestate is survived by a single male heir and also one or more female heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule to the said Act. According to Mr. Ghosh, only in case a dwelling house is occupied by plurality of male heirs, right of female heirs specified in Class-I would be postponed until the male heirs whose to divide their respective shares therein. ( 4 ) WE are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ghosh regarding the scope and effect of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So far as this Court is concerned, the above question is no longer res integra. M. M. Dutt and N. C. Mukharji, JJ. , in the case of (1) Arun Kumar Sanyal v. Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and Another, 79 CWN 305 : AIR 1975 Cal 232 , have, inter alia, laid down that the special provisions mentioned in section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply even in case a Hindu intestate dies leaving one single male heir and also female heir or heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule t the said Act. The Division Bench in the case of Arun Kumar Sanyal v. Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and Another (supra), in our view, rightly held that section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is based on the principles embodied in section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 4 of the Partition Act. These provisions have been enacted for maintaining the integrity of undivided dwelling house by putting restrictions upon the class of persons respectively mentioned in the sections from disrupting the enjoyment of the dwelling house by co-sharers or members of an undivided family. These provisions have been enacted for maintaining the integrity of undivided dwelling house by putting restrictions upon the class of persons respectively mentioned in the sections from disrupting the enjoyment of the dwelling house by co-sharers or members of an undivided family. The female heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act are thus precluded from themselves claiming partition of the dwelling house wholly occupied by the members of the family of a Hindu who dies intestate. Until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares in the dwelling house, such a female heir is however entitled to a right of residence therein. In case a female heir is a daughter, her such right of residence has been further qualified by the proviso to section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. P. K. Banerjee and B. N. Maitra, JJ. , in the case of (2) Surya Kumar Das v. Smt. Maya Das, AIR 1982 Cal 222 , have followed the decision of M. M. Dutt and N. C. Mukherji, JJ. in the case of Arun Kumar Sanyal v. Jnanendra Nath Sanyal (supra) by inter alia, holding that when a Hindu intestate dies leaving a son and a married daughter, the said female heir herself cannot ask for partition of the family dwelling house. These two Division Bench decisions are binding upon us and we also respectfully agree with the views expressed therein. Accordingly, we cannot follow the contrary decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of (3) Hemlata bai v. Umasankar Moharana and Ors. , AIR 1975 Orissa 208. Recently, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of (4) Janabai Ammal v. T. A. S. Panali Mudaliar and Ors. , AIR 1981 Madras 62, has differed from the said decision of the Orissa High Court and has also overruled a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court by holding that the restriction under section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act applies even in case there is only one single male heir of an intestate. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has approved and followed the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Sanyal v. Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and Another (supra ). The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has approved and followed the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Sanyal v. Jnanendra Nath Sanyal and Another (supra ). We accordingly hold that the plaintiff who was female Class-I heir of her deceased husband was not entitled to file the instant suit claiming partition of the family dwelling house situated at 7, Gopal Banerjee Lane, Howrah. She would be entitled to separate allotment of her share only when the defendant himself would choose to divide respective shares therein. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff as the widow late Biswanath Pyne is however, entitled to a right of residence in the said dwelling house. In fact, she has been residing in a portion of the said dwelling house although there is some dispute between the parties regarding the extent of her occupation. Section 23 while postponing the right of the female heirs specified Class-I of the Schedule to the Act from themselves suing for partition of the dwelling house wholly occupied by members of family of a deceased Hindu intestate, has not in any way put fetters upon female heirs specified in Class-I from seeking aid of the Court of law to protect their right of residence to the extent recognized by section 23 of the Act. The Hindu widow becomes full owner of the property which devolves upon her by intestate succession according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Although her right to herself claim partition of the dwelling house has been restricted, she is entitled to seek appropriate relief in case her right of residence therein is denied or interfered with. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff-appellant had alleged that the defendant-respondent who was her step-son was attempting to illegally interfere with her right of residence in the portion of the dwelling house which was in her occupation. The defendant had denied the said allegations of interference by him. In view of the provisions of section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff who is the widow of the deceased intestate Biswanath Pyne cannot herself claim partition of the dwelling house; she entitled to apply for injunction and other appropriate relief in aid of her right of residence. It further appears that during the pendency of the suit the trial court had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It further appears that during the pendency of the suit the trial court had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant has filed an application in this Court for amendment of her plaint to insert a prayer for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent from interfering with her said right of residence in the said dwelling house. ( 7 ) WE do not ourselves propose to consider the said application but we give liberty to the plaintiff to make such an amendment application in the trial Court before which the suit is still pending we make it clear that notwithstanding rejection of her prayer for partition by metes and bounds of holding No. 7, Gopal Banerjee Lane the plaintiff is still entitled in law to seek appropriate relief for protection of her right of residence in the said holding. We may further observe that in case the plaintiff makes such application before it, the trial court will dispose of the same in accordance with law. In order to shorten the course of litigation and also to completely and effectually determine the questions in controversy, the plaintiff-appellant may not be relegated to a fresh suit for injunction for protecting her right of residence in the dwelling house in question. In case such amendment is applied for and is ranted by the trial court, the trial court might appoint a Commissioner for holding local inspection in order to ascertain the exact portion of the dwelling house now occupied by the plaintiff as her residence. The Court below in its order may indicate the portion of the dwelling house in respect of which the plaintiff may be entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction. Subject to aforesaid observations we dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. The application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is also disposed of. Let the records be sent down expeditiously. Mukherji J : I agree