ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the defendant is against the judgment passed by the appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court. 2. One of the substantial questions raised by Mr. Debi Pd., learned Senior Counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the Court below has committed grave error of law in holding that both the plaintiff and the defendant will get half share in he suit property. The substantial question of law which the learned counsel seeks to frame is that since original owner died leaving behind his widow and two sons, the share of the widow will be inherited by her own son and not by the step son. Both the Courts below have come to a finding that the plaintiff and the defendant will get half share "in the suit property. 3. The recorded tenant Janardhan Jha had two wives. From first wife Chakradhar Jha was the son and from the second wife another son was Kedar Jha who died in. 1968 leaving behind his widow who is plaintiff No. 1 and Kedar Jha is defendant No. 1. The second wife of Janardhan Jha, namely, Kanti Jha died in 1977. 4. On these admitted facts certainly defendant would have inherited 2/3rd share had the widow of Janardhan Jha died after coming into force of Hindu Womans Rights and Maintenance Act, 1937. This Court can not presume her to be in constructive possession of the Joint Family Property and thereby acquired absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the instant case admittedly Janardhan Jha died in 1929 leaving behind a widow, and two sons. I am therefore of the opinion, that the widow Kunti Devi did not even acquire any right of maintenance in the suit property. This matter has been considered by a Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Charitra Singh v. Soneful Devi and Ors., AIR 1977 Pat 201 . It was held that where the husband of Hindu female died in the State of jointness in 1930 or 1932 (i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Womans Right to Property Act, 1937) the property left by the deceased husband passed on to the surviving coparceners by way of survivorship and the widow had not interest in the suit property. It was held that where the husband of Hindu female died in the State of jointness in 1930 or 1932 (i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Womans Right to Property Act, 1937) the property left by the deceased husband passed on to the surviving coparceners by way of survivorship and the widow had not interest in the suit property. As a result of this widow can not be said to be in constructive possession of the suit property in 1930-"32. Similar view has been also taken by another Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Kedarnath Singh v. Narendra Mohan Singh and Ors., 1987 BLJR 225 . 5. Mr. Prasad put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Singh v. Kirpa Singh and Ors., AIR 1987 SC. 1616 . In that case the question that came for consideration was whether the step son and step daughter of a female will be covered by the words sons and daughters as used in Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. There is no dispute for the proposition that the step son will not inherit the share of his step mother when his son is alive. In the instant case since the original owner Janardhan Jha died in 1929, the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in my opinion, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 6. For the aforesaid reason no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.