JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 1 is the Appellant against a reversing decree in a suit for title and possession and injunction declaring the sale need dated 14-12-1973 (Ext. A) executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 to be inoperative and void. 2. Plaintiffs and Defendants are relations as revealed from the following genealogy: Paramananda (die on 24-8-1933) Chari (W) = Hara (W) (D. 2) I. I 1 r 1 I. I Budhi (daughter) Nidhi Nanda Purna Suka I (daughter) (D, 3) (D. 4) I Bhagaban Jagabandhu (P. 1) (P. 2) 1 Dasia 3. Suit relates to 41 decimals of land purchased by Paramanda from out of the joint family assets. Case of the Plaintiffs is that after death of Paramananda his two sons (Defendant Nos. 3 and 4) enjoyed the suit property maintaining their mother (Defendant No. 2). In or about 1968 both the brothers divided the disputed property by partition. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 separately sold their half share in possession to the Plaintiffs in two sale deeds, one dated 4-9-1972 (Ext. 1) and the other dated 23-11-1973 (Ext. 2) and Plaintiffs thus remained in possession of the entire 41 decimals of the disputed property. 3. Some times thereafter, Defendant No. 1 who has adjoining homestead obtained a sale deed in respect of the suit land from Defendant No. 2 on 14-12-1973 (Ext. A) which is the main cause of action for the suit. 4. Case of Defendant No. ] is that there was partition among Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 twenty years back and -Defendant No. 2. was given one-third share in the suit properties over which she had absolute right. She sold her one-third land allotted to her as per Ext. A and delivered possession. Defendant No. 3 filed a written statement substantially supporting the case of the Plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4 remained ex parte. 5. Trial Court on assessment of evidence held that there was partition about 22 years back and Defendant No, 2 was given share which she sold to Defendant No. 1 and accordingly, dismissed the suit. In appeal by the Plaintiffs appellate Court has decreed the suit by reversing the findings. 6. The second appeal has been admitted accepting Ground Nos. 1 and 2 to have raised substantial questions of law. In appeal by the Plaintiffs appellate Court has decreed the suit by reversing the findings. 6. The second appeal has been admitted accepting Ground Nos. 1 and 2 to have raised substantial questions of law. They read as follows: I. For that the case of the Plaintiff?s being that there was a complete partition of the disputed plots by metes and bounds between the two sons of the Defendant No. 2 namely the Defendants 3 and 4 sometime in the year 1966, that is 8 years before 1974, and the learned lower appellate Court having-accepted the same it has committed substantial error of law in holding that the Defendant No. 2 being a pre-act (1937 Act) widow is not entitled to a share and as such she had no interest in the property sold and the sale by her to the Defendant No. 1 is invalid and inoperative overlooking the settled general principle of Hindu law being that on partition among the sons the mother is entitled to a share equal to that of a son although she does not inherit her husband, and there is no provision in Hindu Succession Act of 1956 affecting such right which was in force before the commencement of the said Act should have held that such property received by her on partition became her absolute estates u/s 14 (1) of 1956 Act and should have dismissed the Plaintiffs? suit who had no locus standi to challenge the same and not challenged by the Defendant No. 2. 2. For that the learned lower appellate Court should have held that the appeal had abated in the lower appellate Court since the Defendant No. 2, Respondent No. 2 died during the pendency of the appeal and no substitution was effected. In case, the Appellant succeeds on the first ground, the second ground is not required to be examined since Defendant No. 1 would succeed on merits. 7. For that the purpose of is to be examined whether mother considering ground No. 1., it who became widow prior to the coming into force of Hindu Women?s right to Property Act has a share in the joint family property. 8. . The Hindu Women?s Right to Property Act has not been enacted to reduce the right of any Hindu Woman. It has created better rights for them as envisaged therein. 8. . The Hindu Women?s Right to Property Act has not been enacted to reduce the right of any Hindu Woman. It has created better rights for them as envisaged therein. Thus, in respect of the Tight of a mother in a partition between the sons the old customary Hindu Law continues. A mother has no right to claim for partition from her sons and cannot compel a partition so long as her sons remain united. If, however, a partition takes plate between the sons she is entitled to a share to that of a son in the joint property. Where the mother has received some property as stridhan from her husband or father-in-law the value thereof is to be deducted from her share. Applying this old law, there is no doubt that Defendant No. 2 is entitled to a share on partition between Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 whenever it takes place. Once this is the settled law, Defendant No. 2 had a right to sell as per Ext-A and it cannot be said to be invalid. Thus Defendant No. 1 has acquired,a share and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration that the sale deed (Ext. A) is invalid. On this finding the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit. 9. In the result the second appeal is allowed with costs. Final Result : Allowed