Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. This Second Appeal, in view of the points involved, is being disposed of at this stage after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. This Second Appeal is at the instance of two defendants against a judgment of affirmation in a suit for partition filed by Kiran Bala Devi-plaintiff-respondent to No.1. 3. Admittedly, Gopal Singh was the common ancestor of the parties who died leaving behind his only son Arjun Singh. Admittedly, the properties in question Were the self acquired properties of the said Gopal Sinha. The aforementioned Arjun Singh died in the year 1971 leaving behind his wife, Sushila Devi-appellants (his son appellants and the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 7, (his daughters). 4. Allegedly, Arjun Singh also acquired about 4. 27 acres of lands in Mouza Sonari. As noticed hereinbefore, he died in the year 1971 and his wife Sushila Devi died in the year 1977. 5. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed the forementioned suit claiming 1/8th share in the properties of Arjun Singh in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 6. The appellants, apart from other formal defences, contended that Gopal Singh died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the properties left by Arjun Singh were joint family properties. 7. It was further contended that the appellants acquired title to the entire suit properties by adverse possession. 8. Both the courts below concurrently held that Gopal Singh died in the year 1957 i. e. after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, and Arjun Singh died in the year 1971. 9. The learned courts below further arrived at a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the appellants have not acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession. 10. Mr. N. K. prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that although, Gopal Singh died in the year 1957, the properties inherited by Arjun Singh did not become his separate property at his hands but became his ancestral properties in view of the principles of Hindu Law. 11. 10. Mr. N. K. prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that although, Gopal Singh died in the year 1957, the properties inherited by Arjun Singh did not become his separate property at his hands but became his ancestral properties in view of the principles of Hindu Law. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that upon the death of Gopal Sinha, Arjun Sinha and the appellants must be held to have formed a coparcenary amongst themselves and as such at the time of death of Arjun Singh, he had merely 1/3 Id share in the properties inherited by him from Gopal Singh and thus share of the plaintiff and other daughters of Arjun Singh would be 1/24th each, in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. 12. The learned counsel, in support of his contention placed strong reliance upon. Articles 43,214 and 223 of Mullas Hindu Law and Article 290 of Mayne's Hindu Law & Usage. 13. Mr. M. Y. Eqbal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand, submitted that appellants themselves in their written statement Contended that Arjun Singh, during his life time sold a portion of properties inherited by him from his father which go to show that no coparcenary was formed amongst Arjun Singh and the appellants. 14. The Learned counsel in this Connection, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in the case of Ramchandra pillai Vs. Arunschala thamal and ors. (1971 (3) S. C. C. 847). 15. In this appeal it has not been disputed that Gopal Singh died in the year 1957 i.e. after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, and the properties in question were his self acquired properties. It is also not the case of the appellants that Gopal Singh, Arjun Singh and his sons formed a coparcenary. 16. The concept of Mitakhsara coparcenary joint family is well known. A coparcenary is a creation of law and the same can not be formed by an agreement. 17. It has to be borne in mind that a Hindu coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint family and includes only those persons who acquire an interest in the coparcenary property by birth. A coparcenary is a creation of law and the same can not be formed by an agreement. 17. It has to be borne in mind that a Hindu coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint family and includes only those persons who acquire an interest in the coparcenary property by birth. It is true that under the old Hindu Law, when any property was inherited by a person from his father, the same became ancestral property at his hands. But such ancestral properties are a species of coparcenary properties. 18. As indicated hereinbefore it was not the case of the parties that Gopal Singh and Arjun Singh together with the plaintiffs formed a coparcenary. As further indicated hereinbefore, it is also admitted that the properties in question were the self acquired properties of Gopal Singh. (sic) 19. It is now well known that the term ancestral property in its technical sense is applied to property which descends upon one person in such a manner that his male issue acquires certain right in it. Even a property held by a sole surviving coparcener when there is no widow in existence who has power to adopt, would be a separte property . 20. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether upon the death of Gopal Singh, Arjun Singh inherited the Suit properties as ancestral property. 21. The answer to the aforementioned question in my opinion, must be rendered in negative. 22. After coming into the force of the Hindu Succession Act, the general rule of succession in respect of property of a male Hindu dying intestate is that the same devolves upon his heirs in terms of Section 8 thereof. 23. Under the old Hindu law in respect of ancestral property, a grand son whose father is living, a great grand son whose father or father's father is living at the death of the deceased would have been entitled to succeed but not so after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. 24. The word 'devolve' used in Section 8 of the Hindu Successior Act, is important. It means that the same enures to the benefit of the heirs mentioned in Schedule alone. Thus the appellants as sons of Arjun Singh inherit the properties of Gopal Singh. 25. 24. The word 'devolve' used in Section 8 of the Hindu Successior Act, is important. It means that the same enures to the benefit of the heirs mentioned in Schedule alone. Thus the appellants as sons of Arjun Singh inherit the properties of Gopal Singh. 25. Even under the Old Hindu Law, a distinction Was made between a son who Was divided from his father and a son who was not so divided on the death of his father his undivided son succeeded to the properties in preference to the divided son. 26. However, in terms of the Provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there can not be any such distinction. Thus, the concept of ancestral property depended on the existence of a coparcenary and not otherwise. 27. As indicated hereinbefore, as there was no coparcenary by and between Gopal Singh, Arjun Singh and his sons and thas upon the death of Gopal Singh, the properties left by him being his self acquired properties devolved upon Arjun Singh also as no coparcenary was in existence between Gopal Singh, Arjun Singh and his sons. 28. Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, also provides that the properties of an intestate shall be divided amongst the heirs in Class I of the Schedule would be done in the manner laid down therein and in terms of Rule-2 of the said provision, the surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate takes one share each. 29. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, provides for devolution of interest of a coparcenary property i.e. the said provision applies when a male Hindu died after the commencement of the Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property (under line is mine for emphasis) and only in such an event the property devolve by survivorship upon (sic) the of Section 6 of the (sic) Hindu Succession Act, existence of a coparcenary property is a sine qua non. 31• In Ramchandra pillai Vs. Arunschala thammal and ors. (1971 (3) SCC, 847); it has been held that Section 8 of the Act, has no application to the property received by a member of a joint family on partition. 31• In Ramchandra pillai Vs. Arunschala thammal and ors. (1971 (3) SCC, 847); it has been held that Section 8 of the Act, has no application to the property received by a member of a joint family on partition. It has further been held that Section 6 applies to those Hindus who died after the commencement of the Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property and not otherwise. 32. In Sayanarain Mahto and anr. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto and ors. (AIR 1982 Patna, 44), a Division Bench of this Court held that where a Hindu father who has separated from his son left behind his widow, two daughters one son and heirs of two predeceased sons, Section 8 and proviso to Section 6 would apply to the succession of coparcenary property the deceased owned and thus the properties had to be divided equally. 33. The point at issue is no longer resintegra in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of wealth Tax Manipur etc. Vs Chaudar Sen etC. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in (968) 67 I.T.R. 164. (1968) 6/ I.T. 364 Full Bench of the Madras High Court in 1979 Tax Law Report, Madras 14 (M. P. High Court in 139 I.T.R. 673 and Aandhra pradesh High Court reported in 144 I.T.R. Para-19 It is necessary to bear in mind the preamble to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The preamble states that it was an Act, to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus." Para-20 "In view of the preamble to the Act, i. e. that to modify where necessary and to codify the law, in our opinion it is not possible when Schedule indicates heirs in Class I and only includes son and does not include son's son but does include son of a predeceased son, to say that when son inherits the property in the situation contempleted by Section 8 he takes it as karta of his own undivided family. The Gujrat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of son who is inherited to be excluded under Sec. 8 to inherit., the latter would by applying the old Hindu Law get a right by birth of the said property contrary to the scheme outlined in Sec. 8. Further more as noted by the Andhara Pradesh High Court the Act, makes it clear by Section 4 that one should look to the Act, in case of doubt and not the pre-existing Hindu Law. It would be difficult to hold today the property which devolve on a Hindu under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be HUF property in his hand vis a vis his own son, that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mention in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu Family property and vis a vis son and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept would be applied or contempleted. It may be mentioned that heirs in Class I of Schedule under Sec-8 of the Act, included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son etc. Para- 21 "Before, we conclude We may state that we have noted the observations of Mulla's commentory on Hindu Law, 14th Egn, dealing with Sec. 6 of the Hindu, Succession Act, at page-224-20 as well as Mayne's on Hindu Law; 12th Edition, pages-946-919." Para-22 "The express words of Sec-8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail. The preamble to the Act, reiterates that the Act, is inter alia, to 'amend' the law, with that ground the express language which includes son's son but included son of a predeceased son can not be ignored." 34. The Supreme Court in that case, as noticed hereinbefore, agreed with the decision of the High Courts aforementioned wherein it was held that in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, although, under the Old Hindu Law, two or more sons succeed to their father's property together as joint tenants and a tenants in common. 35. 35. Thus, when a property devolves upon the heirs mentioned in Class-I of the Schedule, in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the same constitute the absolute property und his sons have no right by birth in such property. 36. It is, thus, evident that the properties of Gopal Singh was inherited by Arjun Singh as his own property and not for the benefits of his sons. Thus, the question of' the appellants obtaining any interest in the property of Gopal Singh as his grand sons, does not arise. , 37., Arjun Singh, thus, having inherited the properties alone to the exclusion of his sons, such a property did not become a joint family property nor any coparcenary formed automatically by and between Arjun Singh and his sons upon the death of Gopal Singh and in that view of the matter, in view of provision contained in Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, upon the death of Arjun Singh and his wife which took place in the years 1971 and 1977, respectively the plaintiff and her other sisters would inherit in equal shares to that of the appellants. 38. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.