JUDGMENT This is the plaintiffs appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. One Neelawwa filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share against the respondents-defendants in O.S. No. 204 of 1995 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Belgaum. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff Neelawwa and Yellawwa were daughters of Kallappa who was the absolute owner of the suit properties. Kallappa died on 3-1-1947. Plaintiffs mother Shivawwa died on 18-6-1995. Plaintiff's younger sister Yellawwa died on 5-8-1994. 1st defendant is the husband of Yellawwa and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Yellawwa. Plaintiff filed the above suit claiming half share in all the suit properties by separate metes and bounds on the ground that after the death of Kallappa and Shivawwa suit properties are to be divided between the defendants who are the legal representatives of her sister Yellawwa and herself. Defendants contested the suit denying the right of the plaintiff to claim half share in the suit properties. According to them, mother of the plaintiff has executed a Will by bequeathing all the properties to defendant 3 and that the plaintiff on an earlier occasion had filed a suit in O.S. No. 191 of 1989 and later on has withdrawn the suit on 11-3-1991 and therefore they requested the Court to dismiss the suit. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Neelawwa died on 1-1-1997 and after the death of Neelawwa her husband was brought on record. Thereafter, 3rd defendant filed an additional written statement contending that after the death of Neelawwa her husband Irappa has no right to prosecute the suit as Neelawwa died issueless. Therefore, 3rd defendant contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be dismissed. 3. Based on the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and they are in joint possession of suit properties as alleged by her? 2. "Whether plaintiff further proves that she has got half share in suit properties? 3. 3. Based on the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and they are in joint possession of suit properties as alleged by her? 2. "Whether plaintiff further proves that she has got half share in suit properties? 3. "Whether defendants prove that Shivawwa had become the absolute owner of the suit properties after the death of her husband and that she has bequeathed all the suit properties lawfully by executing registered Will dated 11-10-1990 before the attesting witness out of her own free Will, while she was in sound disposing state of mind? 4. "Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? 5. "What order or decree? Additional issues: 1. "Whether plaintiff 1A is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties as a sole surviving successor of his wife the deceased plaintiff? 2. "Whether the plaintiff 1A has been in possession and cultivation of the suit properties along with defendants as tenants-in-common? 4. Trial Court, considering the subsequent development, considered only additional Issue 1 and considering the relevant provisions under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Trial Court felt that there was no necessity for the Court to consider the other issues since the suit filed by Neelawwa is not maintainable due to her death and that her husband cannot claim a share over the properties of Neelawwa in view of Section 15(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, present appeal is filed. 5. Heard the Counsel for both the parties. 6. According to the Counsel for the appellant, Trial Court. has committed an error in not giving its finding on all the issues and that the Trial Court has also committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without considering Sections 15(1) and 16 of the Act. According to the Counsel for, the appellant, appellant being the husband of Neelawwa is entitled to claim share in the properties of Neelawwa as he falls under the category of Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. According to him, appellant being the husband of deceased Neelawwa is entitled to claim share along with the Sons and daughters if any of Neelawwa. According to the Counsel for, the appellant, appellant being the husband of Neelawwa is entitled to claim share in the properties of Neelawwa as he falls under the category of Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. According to him, appellant being the husband of deceased Neelawwa is entitled to claim share along with the Sons and daughters if any of Neelawwa. Since Neelawwa had no issues, husband within Section 15(1)(a) of the Act, is entitled to succeed considering him as the legal heir comes under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, Counsel for the appellant requests this Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 7. Sri Ram Bhat, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents' Counsel contends that in view of the fact that Irappa, husband of Neelawwa has no right to pursue the suit as the suit itself was not maintainable, there was no necessity for the Trial Court to give its finding on all the issues. He further contends that in facts of the case view of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, appellant cannot rely upon Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act can be pressed into service in the event of Section 15(2) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, following points would emerge for the consideration of this Court in this appeal: 1. If a suit is not maintainable in law, whether the Trial Court is required to give its findings on all the issues? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim a share in the properties of his deceased wife when he has no issues through the deceased? 9. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, suit properties were the properties of Kallappa who was the father of the deceased plaintiff Neelawwa and her younger sister Yellawwa. Kallappa died in the year 1947. Subsequently, plaintiffs sister Yellawwa died on 5-8-1994. It is not in dispute that after the death of Yellawwa, plaintiff's mother Shivawwa died on 18-6-1995. It is also not in dispute that after the death of Kallappa and Shivawwa, properties of Kallappa are to he divided equally between Neelawwa and the legal heirs of Yellawwa. Kallappa died in the year 1947. Subsequently, plaintiffs sister Yellawwa died on 5-8-1994. It is not in dispute that after the death of Yellawwa, plaintiff's mother Shivawwa died on 18-6-1995. It is also not in dispute that after the death of Kallappa and Shivawwa, properties of Kallappa are to he divided equally between Neelawwa and the legal heirs of Yellawwa. It is also not in dispute that defendants are the legal heirs of Yellawwa. Similarly, during the pendency of the suit, on 1-1-1997 plaintiff Neelawwa died without any issues leaving behind her husband Irappa as sole surviving heir. 10. After the death of Neelawwa, 3rd defendant has raised a contention regard to the right of Irappa to claim share out of the properties of Kallappa and Shivawwa. Considering the subsequent developments, this Court is of the opinion that there was no necessity for the Trial Court to give its finding on the other issues since the appellant cannot claim a share in all the suit properties. If the legal representatives of Neelawwa cannot claim a: share and suit for partition itself is not maintainable, there is no necessity for the Trial Court to give its findings on other issues. If the Court is of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable, then only the Court can give its findings on other issues. When the suit itself can be disposed of on a preliminary issue, there is no necessity for the Court to give its findings on other issues. In the circumstances, Point No.1 is held against the appellant. 11. Then the next point to be considered by this Court is whether the appellant is entitled to claim a share in the suit properties by virtue of Section 15(1)(a) read with Section 16 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant Irappa was the husband of the plaintiff Neelawwa. It is also not in dispute that Irappa and Neelawwa had no issues and that the appellant Irappa along is the sole legal heir of deceased Neelawwa. The suit properties are the properties inherited by Neelawwa from her parents. Section 15 of the Act deals with the general rules of succession in the case of a female Hindu. It is net in dispute that Neelawwa died intestate. The suit properties are the properties inherited by Neelawwa from her parents. Section 15 of the Act deals with the general rules of succession in the case of a female Hindu. It is net in dispute that Neelawwa died intestate. In view of the death of Neelawwa without executing a testament, property has to be devolved firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband, secondly upon the heirs of the husband, thirdly upon the mother and father, fourthly upon the heirs of the father and lastly upon the heirs of the mother. From the reading of the above section, it is clear that this section would apply to a property held by a deceased female who died intestate. But sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act clearly envisages that if any property inherited by a female Hindu from her parents, shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the orders specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father. Similarly, if a female Hindu inherited the property from her husband or from her father-in-law, shall devolve upon the heirs of the husband in the absence of a children. From reading of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear to the Court that arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the appellant Irappa can be treated as a successor provided the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of Neelawwa. Admittedly, suit properties were inherited by Neelawwa from her parents. This Court has to consider the provisions of Section 15(2) and (1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant cannot be appreciated by this Court. In the circumstances, Point No.2 has to be held against the appellant. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Considering the relationship between the parties, they shall bear their costs.