Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. On 24-4-1973, Baijnath Rai of village Maksudpur, within Muzaffarpur district died, leaving behind his widow Kauleshwari Devi, the defendant No. 1, a married daughter, Kamla Devi, the plaintiff, from his first wife. Mostt. Marachai, (who had died on 22-2-1984) minor daughter, Kamleshwari Devi, the defendant No. 2 and minor son. Amarnath Rai, the defendant No. 3 from his second wife. 2. Kamla Devi filed Partition Suit No. 174 of 1973 against her stepmother, sister and brother for partition of her 1/4th share in the proper-ties, detailed in Schedules I and II to the plaint. 3. According to plaintiff, she along with defendants jointly inherited interest in the suit properties, after death of Baijnath Rai. There was no partition by metes and bounds. Ten Khatias land was sold by defendant No, 1 to one Ajab Rai, so he was made defendant No. 4 in the suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit. According to them, Defendant No. 1 was only wife of Baijnath Rai. He had no second wife, named Marachia. Plaintiff was not: the daughter of Baijnath Rai, rather she was daughter of one Faguni Rai, son of Khaderan Rai of village Morsand Sabalia. Police Station Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur. Real name of defendant No. 3 was Ashok Kumar and not Amarnath Rai as disclosed in plaint. Plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with the suit properties. Even if, plaintiff would have been daughter of Baijnath Rai, her share cannot be more than 1 / 16th, Defendant No. 1 has already sold 10 kathas land for family necessity, which is in possession of defendant No, 4. 5. Trial Court found that plaintiff was daughter of Baijnath Rai from his first wife, Mostt. Marchai. She was entitled to 1 / 12th share in Schedule-I properties. Plaintiff was not entitled to share in the dwelling house situated in Mohalla Maksudpur. Claim for partition of Schedule-II properties was disallowed. 6. It was observed that plaintiffs share was to be calculated as per Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . A notional partition was to be assumed immediately before the death of Baijnath Rai, which took place in April, 1973. Therefore, at that time share of Baijnath Rai, Ashok and Kauleshwari Devi would came to 1/3rd each. How in 1/3rd share of Baijnath Rai. A notional partition was to be assumed immediately before the death of Baijnath Rai, which took place in April, 1973. Therefore, at that time share of Baijnath Rai, Ashok and Kauleshwari Devi would came to 1/3rd each. How in 1/3rd share of Baijnath Rai. defendant No. 1 plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 shall have equal shares and each of them would further get 1/12th share. Thus, excluding the dwelling house aforesaid shares of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is 1/ 12th each and that of defendants 1 and 3 is 5/ 12th each. 7. Admittedly, Baijnath Rai died after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) leaving behind his widow, two daughters and a son as his class-I heirs. 8. Explanation-I of proviso to Sec. 6 of the Act, which contains the formula for determining the share of the deceased creates a fiction by providing that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death. In the present case, accordingly, the Court had to imagine a state of affairs in which a little prior to Baijnaths death, a partition of the coparcenary property was effected between him and other members of the coparcenary. In a partition between Baijnath Rai and his son, there would have been three shares in the coparcenary property the third being his wife. 9. Two things are thus clear (i) that in a partition of coparcenary property. Baijnath Rai would have obtained a 1/3rd share and (ii) that the share of plaintiff as one of his daughters, in the 1/3rd share is 1/4th, i.e., to say 1/ 12th. 10. In order to ascertain the share of heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, it is necessary in the very nature of things, and at the very first step, to ascertain the share of deceased in the coparcenary property. For, by doing that alone can one determine the extent of share of one of the daughters of late Baijnath Ram, who was plaintiff in the suit. What is, therefore, required to be assumed was that a partition had in fact, taken place between deceased, Baijnath Rai and his coparcener immediately before his death. For, by doing that alone can one determine the extent of share of one of the daughters of late Baijnath Ram, who was plaintiff in the suit. What is, therefore, required to be assumed was that a partition had in fact, taken place between deceased, Baijnath Rai and his coparcener immediately before his death. Share of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition, which had taken place, during life time of the deceased. 11. In the present case, if partition had, in fact, taken place immediately before death of Baijnath Rai, he would have been entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property and defendants 1 and 2 would have become entitle to get a share equal to Baijnath and so the property would have been divided in three equal shares. 12. It is not correct to say that plaintiff as well as defendants all succeeded together as tenants in common to the entire property recorded in the name of Baijnath Rai. I, therefore, find that the trial Court rightly found that plaintiff was not coparcener along with his son and they succeeded to Baijnath Rais distinct 1/3rd share in the suit property, along with defendants as tenants in common. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held the plaintiffs to be entitled to 1/ 12th share in the suit property. 13. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.