Judgment Prabha Shankar Mishra, J. This appeal by the defendant-appellant bas arisen out of Partition Suit no. 15 of 1969 of the court of 2nd. Munsif, Chapra, and Title Appeal No. 47/28 of 1976-1977 of the court of 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Saran at Chapra Title Suit no 9 of 1973 filed by the appellant and decreed by the trial court was also appealed in T.A. 57 of 1977 by the defendants of the said suit. No appeal has, however been preferred to this court in respect of the said appeal. According to the plaintiff-respondent Kulhan Mishra had a son Jaggannath Mishra and a daughter Prema Devi from his wife Bartano Kuer. Ater Bartano's death, he took a second wife Rajram Kuer and a daughter Lagni Devi, was born to them. Jagannath Mishra predeceased Kulhan issueless. After Kulhan's death his widow Rajrani and two daughters Prema & Lagna came in possession of his estate. Rajrani died some times in 1959, Prema and Lagna thereafter inherited the properties of Kulhan Prema died leaving behind the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff respondent thus came in possession of the properties along with Lagna Devi. Since the plaintiff felt difficulty in dividing the produce with Lagna Devi, advisedly he filed a suit for partition being Partition Suit no. 15 of 1969. This suit, however, was decreed exparte, but the appellant filed a miscellaneous case for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The trial Court dismissed the said miscellaneous case. On appeal, however, the ex-parte decree was set aside. Partition Suit no is of 1969 was thereafter heard and dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal being Title Appeal No. 47/28 of 1976177. The learned Additional Subordinate judge who beards the appeal allowed the same in part ranting to the plaintiff-respondent a decree for partition to the extent of one-fourth share in the properties of Kulhan. The defendant thereafter has filed this appeal. 3. The case of the defendant-appellant however, is that kulhan had a son Jagannath who predeceased him issueless, leaving behind his widow Daropadi. Kulhan had no daughter from his wife Bartano Kuer. His only other issue was the defendant-appellant from his second wife, Rajrani. After Kulhan's death, his widow Rajrani and the widow of Jagannath, Daropadi came in possession over the properties. On 13.2.56 they executed a deed of gift in respect of the properties in favour of the defendant appellant. Kulhan had no daughter from his wife Bartano Kuer. His only other issue was the defendant-appellant from his second wife, Rajrani. After Kulhan's death, his widow Rajrani and the widow of Jagannath, Daropadi came in possession over the properties. On 13.2.56 they executed a deed of gift in respect of the properties in favour of the defendant appellant. Soon thereafter, Rajrani died leaving behind the defendant-appellant as the only heir. The other allegations made by the plaintiff-respondent were denied by the defendant-appellant. 4. Controversies relating to the relationship and other allied matters have, however, been concluded by the findings of fact by the courts below. According to the findings, Kulhan died in the year 1944. Jagannath, his only son, had predeceased him leaving behind a widow Daropadi, After Kulhan's death, his widow Rajrani and the widow of his predeceased son Daropadi inherited his estate as limited owners. On 13.2.56, they executed a deed of gift in favour of the defendant-appellant. Rajrani died soon thereafter, but before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. Daropadi died during the pendency of the suit in the year 1976. About Prema Devi, mother of the Plaintiff-respondent, the court of appeal below has found that she was the daughter of Kulhan, but she had died before Kulhan died sometimes between 1936 and 1938. The court of appeal however concluded that so far as the property gifted to the appellant by Daropadi is concerned, she continued to be in legal possession of the same after the death of Daropadi, but after her death in the year 1976, the property gifted by her would devolve on the heirs of Kulhan. The appellant (Rajendra) being a daughter's Son was also entitled to a share equal to that of the defendant-appellant. About the properties gifted by Rajrani the court of appeal below found that after Rajrani's death, Daropadi inherited the same as a limited owner to become absolute owner after 1956 Act, came in force and after Daropadi's death in the year 1976 the defendant appellant became absolute owner to the extent of the gift executed by Rajrani. The court of appeal below thus granted to the plaintiff-respondent a decree to the extent of one-fourth interest in the estate of Kulhan. 5. The court of appeal below thus granted to the plaintiff-respondent a decree to the extent of one-fourth interest in the estate of Kulhan. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has contended before me that the plaintiff-respondent has been wrongly acknowledged as an heir of Kulhan Mishra by the court of appeal below. According to him, the inheritance by the widow of Kulhan and the widow of his predeceased son was although limited to their life under the then existing law, but with the enforcement of the 1956 Act, Daropadi became an absolute owner and after the death of Daropadi in the year 1976, the appellant alone inherited the same. He has further submitted that by transferring their respective interests to the appellant by the deed of gift dated 13.2.56 Rajrani and Daropadi not only created a limited interest in favour of the appellant but also conferred upon her absolute title as she continued in possession of the property in question even after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 learned Counsel, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has, however, contended that Lagna's possession over the property in question on the basis of the deed of gift must revert to the heirs and legal representatives of Kulhan who awaited inheritance because of the interference for life by the widow and the widow of the predeceased son. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, fairly conceded that it will not be possible to find any fault with the finding of fact that Prema had predeceased Kulhan, that Lagna came in possession of the properties by virtue of deed of gift, that Rajrani and Dropadi inherited the properties as limited owners from Kulhan who died in the year 1944 and that the appellant being a daughter of Kulhan is entitled to a share in the property. 6. In my view, there is no scope for any controversy to the legal position that since Kulhan died in the year 1944 leaving behind his widow Rajrani and the widow of the predeceased son Daropadi, no other person but these widows became entitled to inherit from him in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. They of course, got a limited interest under the said Act, and on 13.2.56 by dint of the deed of gift; they transferred in favour of the appellant only their respective interests. They of course, got a limited interest under the said Act, and on 13.2.56 by dint of the deed of gift; they transferred in favour of the appellant only their respective interests. Rajrani died before the 1956 Act, came into force and, therefore, the property gifted by her to the appellant could be claimed by a person entitled to inherit as the heir of Kulhan. But Daropadi being the widow of the predeceased son of Kulhan was still available to inherit Kulhan's estate as a limited heir on the date of death of Rajrani and, therefore, Rajrani's interest Kulhan's estate demised to Daropadi. Since Daropadi survived until 1976 she became an absolute owner of the properties held until the date of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as a limited owner. In view of the provisions of section 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the only person entitled to inherit from Daropadi available on the date of her death was Lagna. 7. The general rule of succession in the case of female Hindus is not applied in the case of any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in law and in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daughter devolves not upon other heirs but upon the heirs of the husband. The general rule of succession in the case of males as provided under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, thus is attracted in such a situation as if the property held by a female Hindu is held by her husband and applying the law prescribed in this behalf, it is obvious that in a case where there is no heir of class I, the relatives specified in-Class II of the Schedule are entitled to inherit. Sister is one of the heirs specified in Class II of the schedule. 8. In the instant case, the plaintiff-respondent is the son of a predeceased sister of the appellant. The appellant is admittedly sister of the husband of Daropadi. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has tried to suggest that the appellant being a step sister, she is not in the same position as a full sister and since she is a stepsister of the husband of Daropadi, she is not entitled to inherit. The appellant is admittedly sister of the husband of Daropadi. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has tried to suggest that the appellant being a step sister, she is not in the same position as a full sister and since she is a stepsister of the husband of Daropadi, she is not entitled to inherit. It is difficult, however, to accept this extreme argument. There is no mention in the schedule of a step-sister, a step-brother, a step-mother or a step-father. No distinction had been maintained under the 1956 Act, between a full sister and full brother on the one hand and a step-sister and step-brother on the ether. 9. It appears obvious to me that Rajrani and Daropadi who together inherited as limited owners the properties of the last male holder who died in the year 1944, held the same together until his widow Rajrani died and after Rajrani's death, Daropadi as the widow of a predeceased son of the last male holder continued to hold the estate of the last male holder as a limited owner. After the enforcement of the 1956 Act, her limited right became absolute right: She having become absolute owner of the property, the inheritance after her death has to be governed by section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. I have already noticed earlier that the appellant is entitled to inherit the properties last held by Daropadi as the nearest heir of her husband. Even assuming that the plaintiff-respondent is one of the reversioners of the husband of Daropadi, yet her husband's sister has got a preferential-position. So long the appellant is available; the plaintiff-respondent has got no right to succeed to the properties held by Daropadi having absolute right after enforcement of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. 10. The view that I have taken should conclude the controversy between the parties. Since the appellant is entitled to inherit the entire estate held last by Daropadi, her brother's widow, whether she got the same by way of gift on 13.2.56 or not and whether the deed of gift executed on 13.2.56 would be valid after demise of Daropadi or not, do not appear to be relevant questions. Since the appellant is entitled to inherit the entire estate held last by Daropadi, her brother's widow, whether she got the same by way of gift on 13.2.56 or not and whether the deed of gift executed on 13.2.56 would be valid after demise of Daropadi or not, do not appear to be relevant questions. Assuming in favour of the plaintiff-respondent that the deed of gift dated 13-2-56 created a limited right only in favour of the appellant and the same ceased to operate after 1976 when Daropadi died, still because the appellant is entitled to inherit as the heir of the husband of Daropadi, the plaintiff's claim for partition must fail. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has not pressed his cross-objection before me. Since I have not found anything by way of any error of law in the decisions to the extent the issues were decided in favour of the appellant by the court of appeal below, I have no option but to dismiss the cross-objection. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree of the court of appeal below to the extent it has granted a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is set aside. Partition suit No. 15 of 1969 is hereby dismissed. But on the facts and in the circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed, cross objection dismissed.