Judgment 1. This second appeal is at the instance of defendant 1st party. One Lachuman Tewari had two sons, namely, Ram Lochan Tewari and Jaimangal Tewari (defendant 4). Jaimangal Tewari had two sons, namely, Bir Bahadur Tewari (defendant 5) and Kapildeo Tewari (defendant 6). Ram Lochan Tewari died some time in the year 1963. He had three sons, namely, Mathura Tewari, Ragho Tewari (defendant 1) and Raghunath Tewari (defendant No. 2) Thakurji Tewari (defendant 3) is the son of Raghunath Tewari. Although there was some controversy between the parties earlier, the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court is that Mathura Tewari died in the year 1938 after the coming into force of the Hindu Women"s Rights to Property Act, 1937, leaving behind Mst. Rikhiya (plaintiff 1), his widow and Smt. Parbati Devi (Plaintiff 2), his daughter. 2. The two plaintiffs instituted the title suit namely, Partition Suit No. 353 of 1967, out of which this second appeal has arisen, against the defendants for declaration that they were entitled to half share in the joint family property described at the foot of the plaint. There was also a prayer for partition and allotment of the share in their separate takhtas. The defendants contested the suit. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiffs 1/9th share in the properties sought to be partitioned. Defendant 1st party was held entitled to 8/9th share in the said property. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit in full thereby allowing the plaintiffs eight annas interest in the suit property. The defendant 1st party has now carried the matter in second appeal. 4. Two substantial questions of law that were formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this second appeal may be found in Order No. 5 d/-13-7-1981. One of them was "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share only in the suit properties in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act?" The second was "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any share in the inheritance left by Ragho Tiwary?" 5. The contention, on behalf of the appellant, raised before this Court is "whether the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/2 share in the property sought to be partitioned or 1/3rd share only. 6. The contention, on behalf of the appellant, raised before this Court is "whether the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/2 share in the property sought to be partitioned or 1/3rd share only. 6. It is not in dispute that Mathura Tewari died after the coming into force of the Hindu Women"s Rights to Property Act, 1937 in a state of jointness with his father and his two brothers abovenamed. Obviously, plaintiff 1 Mst. Rikhiya, on the death of her husband, would step into the shoes of her deceased husband under the Hindu Women"s Rights to Property Act, 1937. Next person to die was Ram Lochan Tewari. He too died in a state of jointness with his two sons, namely, Ragho Tewari and Raghunath Tewari. The third to die was Ragho Tewari who, as stated above, died some time in the year 1967 during the pendency of the suit. It is undisputed that Ragho Tewari died leaving behind no heir much less any heir specified in Cl.(i), Sch. 2, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the claim of the plaintiff Rikhiya to 1/3rd share in the joint family property. What he challenged was the finding of the lower appellate Court that she was entitled to 8 annas share. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is sound and must prevail. 7. Sec. 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No. 30 of 1956) reads as follows : - "Devolution of interest in coparcenary property : When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary 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." Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , speaks of devolution of interest in coparcenary property, that is to say, it lays down the rule of devolution by survivorship in regard to coparcenary property in the Mitakshara school. The proviso to S.6, Hindu Succession Act, is an exception to the general rule laid down under S.6 of this Act. The exception is that if a man, who is a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara law, dies leaving coparcenary or joint family property and leaving any of the female relatives mentioned in Class I of the Schedule to the Act or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female, his share or interest in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under this Act and not by survivorship. Since Ragho Tewari, undisputedly, died in a state of jointness with Raghunath Tewari without leaving any female heir, as mentioned in proviso to S.6, Hindu Succession Act, the entire interest of Ragho Tewari would pass to Raghunath Tewari by survivorship. The Hindu widow stepping into shoes of her deceased husband by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women"s Rights to Property Act, 1937, cannot be regarded as a member of the coparcenary which her deceased husband formed with the other coparceners. A joint and undivided Hindu family is a body consisting of persons, male or female, who are the sapindas (relations) of each other by birth, marriage or adoption. A coparcenary is a narrower body of an inner circle within the joint family circle consisting of the male members who are related to the head of the family for the time being within four degrees. In such a situation, neither of the two plaintiffs can be regarded as member of the coparcenery formed by Ragho Tewari and Raghunath Tewari. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant, in this connection, placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1964 Pat 261 (Mt. Khatrani Kuer V/s. Smt. Tapeshwari Kuer) wherein it was held that a Hindu widow, when she gets the interest of her husband under S.3(2), Hindu Women"s Rights to Property Act (1937) does not become the coparcener in the joint family. 9. If this be the position, as it must, the question of the two plaintiffs getting any share in the interest of Ragho Tewari which he had at the time of his death in the joint family property cannot arise. Rather under S.6, Hindu Succession Act, the entire interest of Ragho Tewari shall pass on his death to Raghunath Tewari. 9. If this be the position, as it must, the question of the two plaintiffs getting any share in the interest of Ragho Tewari which he had at the time of his death in the joint family property cannot arise. Rather under S.6, Hindu Succession Act, the entire interest of Ragho Tewari shall pass on his death to Raghunath Tewari. In such a situation, the plaintiffs could be entitled only to l/3rd interest in the properties sought to be partitioned and finding of the lower appellate Court that they are entitled to 1/2 share is illegal and bound to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The plaintiffs are, therefore, held entitled to only l/3rd share in the property sought to be partitioned as, undisputedly, described in Schedule "kha" to the plaint. To this extent, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court stands modified. 10. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed with the modification in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court as stated above. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs and the parties shall bear their own costs of this second appeal.