Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th December 1997 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnanagar, Dist-Nadia in Title Suit No.53 of 1990 thereby passing a preliminary decree in a suit for partition in part. The suit was filed by two female heirs of Class-I under the Hindu Succession Act claiming partition of lands and a dwelling house. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and one of the defences taken was that in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the female heirs were not entitled to claim partition in respect of the dwelling house. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree impugned herein has held that the plaintiffs have 2/9th share in respect of entire suit property including the vacant land and the dwelling house and consequently, passed a decree for partition in respect of the vacant land only after refusing the prayer for partition of the dwelling house. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present first appeal thereby challenging that part of the decree by which their prayer for partition of the dwelling house was refused. None appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act has been omitted during the pendency of this appeal, in our view, the embargo created under Section 23 of the said Act now cannot come in the way of the plaintiffs in claiming partition even if, we assume for the sake of argument that the house concerned comes within the purview of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act as it stood earlier. By the Amending Act No.39 of 2005, the impediment of the female heirs of Class-1 in claiming partition of a dwelling house as indicated in Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act having been lifted and at the same time, by the said Amending Act, the pending proceedings of partition not having been protected, the Respondents are no longer entitled to resist the demand of partition of the plaintiff-appellant. We, thus, find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge should be modified by declaring 2/9th share of the plaintiffs in the entire suit property including the dwelling house and the defendants are directed to amicably partition the entire property including the Dwelling house within three months from today; in default, the parties will be at liberty to pray for appointment of a commissioner. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.