Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the only contesting respondent, who has put in appearance on caveat. (2). A short issue arises for consideration in this case. The facts are not in dispute. (3). The land in question consists of 66 bighas of land belonging to Lehan Singh, who was recorded as khatedar of this land. He died somewhere in 1949, at that time Hindu Succession Act had not come into force. At the time of his death, the said Lehan Singh was survived by his son Hari Singh. Hari Singh had one son Jangir Singh. At the time when Lehan Singh died the property devolved on Hari Singh s successor of Lehan Singh. As Hari Singh had inherited the property from his father, the immediate ancestor, before the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property in his hands was ancestral property, which was subject to unobstructed heritage and his son Jangir Singh got interest in the land by birth and was a coparcener with his father. (4). The said 66 bighas of land were mutated in the name of Hari Singh alone after demise of said Lehan Singh. On 30th September, 1959 by registered gift deed 21 Bighas of land out of the said 66 bighas of land were given to Jangir Singh. Thereafter, Hari Singh died in 1968. During the mutation proceedings on his demise, his two daughters namely Jangir Kaur and Jal Kaur raised objection putting forward their claims to inheritance to the share of Hari Singh in the property inherited by Lehan Singh. (5). Jangir Singh filed a declaratory suit before the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, against Jal Kaur only in the first instance, stating that out of 66 bighas of land, which was ancestral in the hands of Hari Singh, he had gifted 21 bighas of land out of his 1/2 share in it to Jangir Singh. Since Hari Singh had 1/2 share in the ancestral property and other half belonged to Jangir Singh by birth, he held 54 bighas of land in his own right during life time of Hari Singh and only remaining twelve bighas of land of his fathers share in the said land was subject to devolution by succession. Since Hari Singh had 1/2 share in the ancestral property and other half belonged to Jangir Singh by birth, he held 54 bighas of land in his own right during life time of Hari Singh and only remaining twelve bighas of land of his fathers share in the said land was subject to devolution by succession. The daughters of Hari Singh had right to inherit by succession in only 12 bighas land remaining with Hari Singh at the time of his death. As there were three heirs, each inherited 4 bighas of land. Since Jangir Kaur, another sister, has already relinquished her share in favour of Jangir Singh he holds 62 bighas of land. (6). On this premise he claimed a declaration that he is khatedar of 62 bighas of land and accordingly 62 bighas of land be recorded in his name and remaining 4 bighas in the name of Jal Kaur. (7). Jal Kaur contested the suit inter alia on the ground that right to make gift of ancestral property did not vest in Hari Singh alone and such a gift made by Hari Singh was void as being contrary to the interest of Jal Kaur and she is entitled to 22 bighas of land by partition of entire 66 bighas of land on succession. (8). The plea was also raised that this suit was in the nature of determination of right on succession and, therefore, only civil Court has jurisdiction and it was not within the jurisdiction of the revenue courts to decide such issues. (9). The suit filed by Jangir Singh was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh and the appeal against that was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. (10). However, the Board of Revenue accepted the plea raised by the present appellant that Jangir Kaur was a necessary party for deciding the issue of succession, the suit could not have been decided and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, with the direction that after giving an opportunity of hearing to Jangir Kaur suit filed by Jangir Singh be decided afresh. (11). On remand the Assistant Collector accepted the fact of gift in favour of Jangir Singh. However, he did not accept the property to be ancestral and divided the remaining property into 3 equal shares of 15 bighas each. (11). On remand the Assistant Collector accepted the fact of gift in favour of Jangir Singh. However, he did not accept the property to be ancestral and divided the remaining property into 3 equal shares of 15 bighas each. He also found that Jangir Kaur, the other daughter of Hari Singh,m had relinquished her share in favour of the plaintiff. On the findings, after holding the clam of Jal Kaur to 14 bighas 18 biswas of land, remaining 50 bighas 18 biswas wee declared in the khatedari of plaintiff Jangir Singh. This decree was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue. (12). The decree was founded on the premise that succession to the agricultural land was governed by Bikaner Tenancy Act. Under Section 22 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act that the land did not become ancestral in the hand of Hari Singh, he was absolute owner of 66 bighas of land. When he gifted 21 bighas of land to Jangir Singh in 1959, only 45 bighas of land remained with him which was available for devolution by succession on the death of Hari Singh of which 1/3 share fall in share of Smt. Jal Kaur, which is 15 bighas to be exact 14 bighas 16 biswas. (13). Aggrieved with the decision of the Board of Revenue allowing approximately 15 bighas of land as share of Jal Kaur the present appellant filed the Writ Petition No.1838/94 before this Court reiterating that Jangir Kaur could get only 4 bighas of land in her share in the interest of Hari Singh on the death of her father and not 15 bighas as claimed by her. (14). Learned Single Judge found that land to be ancestral one and applying the principle of co-parcenery did not accept the validity of gift deed by holding that no transfer by way of gift could be made without consent of co-parceners in view of said prohibition on the power of Karta contained in the Hindu Law. On that premises, by ignoring the transfer made by Hari Singh in favour of Jangir Singh as a gift, he held that at the time of death of Hari Singh on notional partition of joint family property 33 bighas of land would fall in the share of Hari Singh as if the partition took place immediately before his death. On that premises, by ignoring the transfer made by Hari Singh in favour of Jangir Singh as a gift, he held that at the time of death of Hari Singh on notional partition of joint family property 33 bighas of land would fall in the share of Hari Singh as if the partition took place immediately before his death. On that premise considering the fact that Hari Singh left behind him three heirs of class one, each having 1/3 share, declared that Jal Kaur had 11 bighas of land to her share and remaining property came to the share of petitioner as Jangir Kaur had already relinquished her share in favour of Jangir Singh. (15). Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is before us, at the instance of Jangir Singh, Jal Kaur is not aggrieved with the order under appeal as she has not filed any appeal. (16). We may notice here that so far as property was ancestral in the hand of Hari Singh is not really in dispute. The property in question inherited by a Hindu and governed by Hindu Law. In the erstwhile Bikaner State, Hindus were governed principally by the Banaras School of Mitrakshara. So far as nature of property acquired by succession by a son from any of his immediate male ancestor upto three degrees above him is concerned, it is treated as ancestral property in the hands of son or sons son or sons sons son by all schools of Hindu Law. Such property inherited from father, grand-father or great grand- father by a son, grand-son or great grand-son is treated ancestral property having unobstructed heritage which means that male descendants from the present holder from common ancestor upto 4th generation in the male line of descent including that of the holder for the time being, even gets male child interest in such property by birth. The body of such male descendants is called coparcenery and the male member is called co-parcener. The property is termed as coparcenery property. The interest of a coparcener in coparcenery property is called coparceners interest. Such right is in such male co-parceners own right, is, therefore, considered an unobstructed heritage. It is also well settled that so long as property remains joint there is community of interest, enjoyment and ownership. No one can claim or predicate his precise interest in any property. The interest of a coparcener in coparcenery property is called coparceners interest. Such right is in such male co-parceners own right, is, therefore, considered an unobstructed heritage. It is also well settled that so long as property remains joint there is community of interest, enjoyment and ownership. No one can claim or predicate his precise interest in any property. The question of extent of interest in property becomes germane only when partition takes place. Otherwise, it is every fluctuating interest depending upon death or birth of male child. It fluctuates with change in number of coparceners by birth and death. (17). Therefore, in our opinion, all the revenue Courts were not justified in considering the property in question to be self-acquired property of Hari Singh and dealing with it as suit. The principle of obstructed and unobstructed heritage as per Mitrakshara School of Hindu Law in respect of property acquired by inheritance has been stated in Mullas Hindu Law as under: ``The Mitrakshara divides property into two classes, namely, sapratibanda daya or unobstructed heritage, and sapratibanda daya or obstructed heritage. Property in which a person acquires an interest by birth is called unobstructed heritage. It is called unobstructed, because the accrual of the right to it is not obstructed by the existence of the owner. Thus property inherited by a Hindu from his father, fathers father, or fathers fathers father, but not from his maternal grand-father, is unobstructed heritage as regards his own male issue, that is, his son, grand-son, and great-grandson. His male issues acquire an interest in it from the moment of their birth. Their right to it arises from the mere fact of their birth in the family, and they become coparceners with their paternal ancestor in such property immediately on their birth. Ancestral property is unobstructed heritage. (18). There is nothing in the Bikaner Tenancy Act to suggest to contrary. What has been provided u/Sec.22 is that when a tenant having a right of occupancy in any land dies, the right shall devolve on any male lineal descandants, if any, in the male line of descent. That is also the law under Mitrakshara. (19). Unlike Sec.19 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Bikaner Tenancy Act does not provide that sons, grand-sons of great grand-sons whereby they succeeded the property simultaneously, shall hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. That is also the law under Mitrakshara. (19). Unlike Sec.19 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Bikaner Tenancy Act does not provide that sons, grand-sons of great grand-sons whereby they succeeded the property simultaneously, shall hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. In the absence of such provision, it cannot be presumed that in the case of persons governed by Hindu Law succeed as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Unobstructed heritage or ancestral property is a property wherein co-parceners have community of interest as joint tenants and not as tenant in common. (20). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since Hari Singh had only 33 bighas of land as a co-tenant and he had transferred 21 bighas of land out of his share by way of gift deed in his favour in 1959. As a result Hari Singh was left with only 12 bighas of land, which was available for succession when inheritance opened in 1968. He left behind three heirs of class one viz., son Jangir Singh and two daughters Jal Kaur and Jangir Kaur, each had 1/3 share. Therefore, only 4 bighas of land would fall to the share of each of the heirs. Accordingly, the share of Jal Kaur will be only 4 bighas nd remaining land remained with Jangir Singh on account of his own share plus gift from his father plus his own share on succession and plus disclaimer by Jangir Kaur. (21). This contention is stated to be rejected. Though, we are of the opinion that reason adopted by the learned Single Judge that for making a transfer by way of gift in the facts and circumstances suffered from want of consent of all the co- parceners, even if held to be necessary, is not correct. In the instant case as on the date of alleged gift, there were only two co-parceners in the Hindu Undivided Family of which Hari Singh was karta, namely the donor, who was karta of HUF and the donee, who was the only other coparcener. Consent of both the parties to such transaction is implicit. In the instant case as on the date of alleged gift, there were only two co-parceners in the Hindu Undivided Family of which Hari Singh was karta, namely the donor, who was karta of HUF and the donee, who was the only other coparcener. Consent of both the parties to such transaction is implicit. In respect of such transfer any other person though he or she may be member of family, but who is not a co-parcener, and has no interest whatever in the property nor has a right to claim partition, even if she has a share if partition of the property takes place, has no right to raise objection to such transaction. Such right vest only in coparcener to object to any transfer of coparcenery property which is alleged to be beyond the authority of father of karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. Moreover, in the present case the impugned transaction has been carried out by the consent of all the existing co-parceners. Therefore, the question of examining the validity of contention that such transfer should have taken place, in order to be valid, only with the consent of all co- parceners really does not have any necessary foundation in facts. (22). The next question that arises for consideration is what was the nature of transaction alleged to be a gift. A photostat copy of ``Tamliknama the document of alleged gift has been placed before us for perusal, execution of which has not been disputed by any party and which has been marked as Annexure- 1, by the Revenue Court in proceedings before it. Perusal of this document clearly goes to show that 21 bighas of land in question has been placed at the disposal of appellant-petitioner only in recognition of his right by birth in the property in question and not by way of relinquishing or diminishing the right of father in the property. The relevant part of it reads as under: ^^ftlesa fgUnw lDlsku dh esjk yM+dk taxhj flag tc iSnk gqvk rHkh ls mls vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vc og cky cPpsnkj le>nkj gS] blfy, eSa pkgrk gWw fd vius thou dky esa gh cxjFk ijofjk mldksa bl vkjkth esa ls dqN reyhd dj nw rkfd og vius cky cPpksa dh ijofjk dj ldsaA^^ (23). This clearly indicates that 21 bighas of land has been placed at the disposal of Jangir Singh, appellant only in recognition of his right by birth in the property, so that he can maintain himself out of this property. It nowhere states that by transferring this land Hari Singh is diminishing his share in the property in any manner. Therefore, in substance it clearly conveys that as and when question of determining and question of partition of the property were to take place, 21 bighas of land placed at the disposal of Jangir Singh in recognition of his right by birth in the property for the purpose of his maintenance has to be taken into account. (24). Literally constructed, it conveys that land has only been placed at the disposal of Jangir Singh for the purpose of maintaining himself by cultivating the same without denuding the family of its ownership. Taken in spirit it conveys 21 bighas of land has been given to Jangir Singh towards his share in the property by way of partition. To that extent his share in the property should be deemed to have been satisfied. (25). In view of the aforesaid position, the end result remains the same, that as on the date of death of Hari Singh, when in terms of Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act the question of determining his undivided share in the ancestral property at the time of his death for devolution by intestate succession it is to be deemed as if the partition has taken place notionally immediately before his death. In doing so 21 bighas of land allotted to Jangir Singh on 30th September, 1959 has to be taken into consideration while allotting respective share to the co- parceners for the purpose of finding the notional share of deceased at the time of his death in the co-parcenery property. If it is so, resultant position is that 66 bighas of land which constituted Joint Hindu Family property of co-parcenery of father and son, has to be notionally divided amongst Hari Singh and Jangir Singh. The daughters do not have a share on partition of ancestral property. Mother though one of the heirs in Class I being not present at the time of death of Hari Singh, the notional share of each of coparceners come to be one half each. The daughters do not have a share on partition of ancestral property. Mother though one of the heirs in Class I being not present at the time of death of Hari Singh, the notional share of each of coparceners come to be one half each. Had mother been alive, she, according to principles of partition, would have a share on partition between her husband the son, equal to share of a son. Applying this principle each of Hari Singh and Jangir Singh had 1/2 share in 66 bighas of land and share of each one would come to 33 bighas as 50% share. (26). Since Jangir Singh had already got land to the extent of 21 bighas of land, his claim to that extent stood satisfied and he was entitled to remaining 12 bighas of land only in addition thereto as his share. Fathers share shall remain unaffected at 33 bighas which shall devolve by succession to heirs of Hari Singh, who were his son and two daughters. All are to inherit in equal shares. Thus, each one will get 11 bighas of land as 1/3 share in the share of Hari Singh. Since Jangir Kaur relinquished her share in favour of Hari Singh her share also now remains with Jangir Singh. Jal Kaur shall succeed to remaining 11 bighas. (27). In view of that we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in declaring that Jal Kaur is entitled to 11 bighas of land by the succession to his father Hari Singh in 1968 and to the extent she is entitled to get mutation in her name. Remaining land shall be recorded in the name of Jangir Singh. (28). Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.