JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J,—This is a Regular Second Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 23rd June, 1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the decree and judgment dated 22nd June, 1978 of Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, was affirmed and the suit of respondent-plaintiff, Tota Ram, was decreed. 2. The facts of the matter are that one Kapura had three sons, namely. Narainu, Gopala and Surat Ram. Out of them, Narainu died on 6-6-1967 and did not leave behind either widow or any child. He bequeathed his property, which is subject matter of the present litigation, in favour of two of the sons of his brother Surat Ram, namely, Lashkri, the original defendant and Udham Singh, the present appellant-defendant No. 2. Lashkri had died in the lower Court and his legal representatives, Smt Kartari Devi and others, were brought on record, who are now appellants-defendants No. 1 and 3 to 6. The original plaintiff was Gopala who had also died in the trial Court and his legal representative, Tota Ram, was substituted in his place. The original plaintiff, Gopala, had filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute challenging the will executed by Narainu in favour of original defendant Lashkri and Udham Singh. His claim was that after the death of Narainu on 6-6-1967, he being his brother, had a right to inherit his property. According to him, the will dated 14-2-1966 was not a valid will binding on his rights. His case, further was that parties being agriculturist Rajputs wore governed by custom under which Narainu had no right to execute a will of the land which he had inherited from a common ancestor. 3. The suit was resisted by Kartari Devi and others and all the allegations made therein were denied. It was alleged that the will made in their favour was in lieu of services and was valid According to Ksirtari Devi and others, neither the parties were governed by custom as alleged by Tota Ram nor the land in dispute was ancestral. The trial Court held the will as valid will but decreed the suit holding that the parties were governed by custom under which Narainu had no right to execute the will in respect of the suit property which was ancestral. These findings were confirmed in appeal filed by Smt. Kartari Devi and others. The trial Court held the will as valid will but decreed the suit holding that the parties were governed by custom under which Narainu had no right to execute the will in respect of the suit property which was ancestral. These findings were confirmed in appeal filed by Smt. Kartari Devi and others. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal. 4. I have beard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The first point urged by Sh. K D. Sood, learned Counsel for Stnt. Kartari Devi and others, is that the alleged custom, that ancestral property could not be alienated by way of will, stands abrogated by section 30 read with section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (herein-after referred to as the Act)- According to him, if it is held so, then Smt. Kartari Devi and others will inherit the property of Narainu by way of will dated 14-2-1966 executed by him which has been held to be valid will by both the Courts below and these findings have not been challenged by Tota Ram. For appreciating this argument, sections 4 and 30 of the Act are required to be examined. Section 4 of the Act is as under:- "Overriding effect of Act—(I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,— (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act ; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. (2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for ths prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings." This section gives an overriding effect to the Act. According to section 4(1) (a), all the rules of law of succession applicable to Hindus before coming into force of the Act, whether by virtue of any text or rule of Hindu Law or any custom or usage, having the force of law, stand abrogated in respect of all matters for which provision is made in the Act. Further, under sub-section (1) (b) of the Act, any other law contained in any Central or State legislation in force immediately before this Act came into being, was also superseded in so far as such legislation is inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Act. Section 30 of the Act is as under :— "Testamentary succession —Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (9 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus. Explanation—The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property or the interest of a member of tarvad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the property of the tarvad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him or by her within the meaning of this section," Section 30 is the sole section included in Chapter III which provides for testamentary succession The other provisions from section 5 to section 29 included in Chapter II of this Act pertain to intestate succession with which we are not concerned in the present case In fact, as is apparent from the preamble of the Act, the object of the Act was to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus " Yet, in their wisdom, the legislature has added section 30 and provided for testamentary succession. 5. Now, it is to be seen how far section 30 of the Apt has made inroads into the Hindu law The Mitakshara system of Hindu law recognises two modes of devolution of property, namely, survivorship and succession. The rule of survivorship applies to Joint Hindu Family property whereas the rule of succession applies to separate property of the members of Joint Hindu Family. The rule of survivorship applies to Joint Hindu Family property whereas the rule of succession applies to separate property of the members of Joint Hindu Family. Further, under the Miiakshara system, every member of Joint Hindu Family has only one undivided interest in the joint property. The Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons lenialiy descendant from a common ancestor including their wives and unmarried daughters. But a coparcenary is a much narrower body and it includes only those persons who acquire, by birth, an interest in the joint or coparcenary property and they are the sons, grand sons and great grand sons of the holder of joint property, in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. No female can become coparcener under the Mitakshara law. Similarly, the ancestral property is the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, fathers father or fathers fathers father. The essential features of ancestral property, according to the Mitakshara system, are that the sons, grand sons and great grand sons of the person who inherits it acquire an interest in it by birth and their rights attach to it at the moment of their birth As such, coparcenary property under the Hindu law includes ancestral property. 6. The Act has neither abolished the Joint Hindu Family nor the Joint Hindu Family property nor it has interfered with the special rights of those who are members of Mitakshara coparcenary body except in the manner and to the extent mentioned in sections 6 and 30 of the Act. In the present case, we are concerned with section 30, which, alongwith its explanation, provides that a male Hindu may dispose of his interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property by way of a will. By the explanation, the interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property has been held to be the property capable of being disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus As the Indian Succession Act provides for testamentary succession by way of a will, it follows that the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is capable of being disposed of by way of a will or other testamentary disposition. By using a non-obstante clause, that is, "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force", the explanation to section 30 has been given an overriding effect. Even if there is anything contrary in the Act or any other law, which includes custom also, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is capable of being disposed of by way of will, in other words, the bar created by way of custom that the coparcenary property is not capable of being alienated by executing a will by one of the coparceners is taken away and rule of survivorship is finished to a limited extent. But it continues to apply in the case of gift and other alienations which are inter vivos. 7. Therefore, in view of section 30 of the Act, which specifically provides that interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is capable of being disposed of by way of will irrespective of any provision in the Act or any other law to the contrary, read with section 4 of the Act, I hold without any hesitation that any custom prohibiting testamentary succession by way of will of a coparcenary property stands abrogated. In view of section 30 read with section 4 of the Act, a male Hindu governed by Mitakshara system is not debarred from making a will in respect of coparcenary/ancestral property. 8. For taking this view, I have taken support from Full Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, West Bengal, HI Calcutta v. Sampatrai Bhutoria and Sons, 1981 TLR 1550, wherein in para 17 it has been held as under :— "Again, section 30 of the Act makes provision for a male governed by Mitakshara Law to dispose of by a testament his interest in the coparcenary property. In such a case the provisions of sections 6 and 8 would not be applicable. The general law of Mitakshara branch is now repealed by Explanation to section 30 which lays down that such interest of a Hindu male under Mitakshara is to be deemed to be the property capable of being disposed of by will..." 9. In such a case the provisions of sections 6 and 8 would not be applicable. The general law of Mitakshara branch is now repealed by Explanation to section 30 which lays down that such interest of a Hindu male under Mitakshara is to be deemed to be the property capable of being disposed of by will..." 9. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in S. V. Sundaresan v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Coimbatore, 1983 TLR 1438, In Para 16 it has been observed :— "......According to the original Mitakshara law, no coparcener, not even a father could dispose of by will his undivided coparcenary interest even if the other coparceners consent to the disposition. This is because the moment the coparcener died his undivided interest devolved by survivorship on the other coparceners. The title by survivorship was considered to take precedence to the exclusion of that by devise. This rule of Mitakshara law has now been abrogated by section 30 and the Explanation thereto- Section 30 read with the explanation only empowers a coparcener to dispose of his property by will in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or any other law for the time being in force. The section is confined only to testamentary disposition and does not cover disposition by way of gift inter vivos..." 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Sh. Bhupender Gupta,. has relied upon Kaur Singh Gajjan Singh v. Jaggar Singh Kehar Singh, AIR 1961 Punj 489 ; Sundara Adapa and others v. Girija and others, AiR 1972 Mys 11 and Joginder Singh Kundha Singh v. Kehar Singh Dasaundha Singh and another, AIR 1V65 Punj 407, which are not applicable to the present case as the interpretation of section 30 read with section 4 of the Act was not directly involved therein. 11. In the result, Smt. Kartari Devi and others must succeed on the ground that the will dated 14-2-1966 executed by Naranu in their favour was a valid will and not hit by custom as held by both the Courts below. In view of the interpretation of section 30 read with section 4 given hereinabove, it is held that the alleged custom, that Narainu had no right to bequeath his property by way of a will, which was ancestral property, stood abrogated. 12. In view of the interpretation of section 30 read with section 4 given hereinabove, it is held that the alleged custom, that Narainu had no right to bequeath his property by way of a will, which was ancestral property, stood abrogated. 12. In view of this finding, I need not consider the other points raised in the appeal. 13. I, therefore, set aside the decree and judgment dated 23rd June, 1 3979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, and the decree and judgment dated 22nd June, 19/8 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, and dismissed the suit of Tota Ram, In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.