Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The second, appeal has been listed for orders on petition. The appellant was the defendant in the suit below and appellant in the first Court of appeal. The plaintiff is the respondent and has appeared. The interlocutory application is for stay of the preparation of final decree under appeal, insofar as it relates to the residential house. 2. In my view, as plaintiff is the only contesting party and has appeared, the other respondent being defendant who has chosen not to appear nor has filed the appeal, it will serve no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. 3. In my view, a substantial question of law thus arises on which both parties have already been heard. The substantial question of law is whether in my view the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as prior to its amendment in the year 2005, was the trial Court and the appellate Court correct in law in awarding a share to the plaintiff, who was a Class-I female heir of late Jibu Sah. 4. The second question, as sought to be raised, in my view, is misconceived inasmuch as it has been submitted that though the plaintiff had originally claimed 1/4th share while she has been awarded l/3rd share and whether this is correct and permissible in law. I hold that this question is misconceived inasmuch as though the claim was for 1/4th share at the time when suit was instituted, during the pendency of suit one person i.e., the mother died. The Class-I heirs were the two sons and the daughter remaining who were already party to the suit and as such the share naturally enhanced to l/3rd from 1/4th. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant ultimately does not challenge the share as determined being 1/3rd of the plaintiff-respondent. The properties involved are residential house where the two brothers stay and some landed properties. There is no difficulty so far as the landed properties are concerned. They have to be divided and the plaintiff-respondent could be entitled to 1/3rd share and the final decree in that respect could operate. But so far as the residential house is concerned, the position is slightly different. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is quoted hereunder. Section 23. They have to be divided and the plaintiff-respondent could be entitled to 1/3rd share and the final decree in that respect could operate. But so far as the residential house is concerned, the position is slightly different. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is quoted hereunder. Section 23. Special provision respecting dwelling house - Where a Hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both male and female heirs specified in class I of the Schedule and his or her property includes a dwelling-house wholly occupied by members of his or her family, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the right of any such female heir to claim partition of the dwelling-house shall not arise Until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein; but the female heir shall be entitled to a right of residence therein. 6. A reference to the said section would show that a special provision has been made with regard to residential house. A plain reading of the aforesaid would show that the right of female Class-I heir is not taken away or extinguished in relation to a residential house. She remains entitled to her share in the same which is 1/3rd in the instant case. The only difference is that division of that residential house physically (partitioning) is postponed. The moment the male Class-I heir occupying the residential house decides to partition the residential house amongst themselves the Class-I female heir would also get physically her share, but, not before that eventuality. In the present, case plaintiff-respondent is married. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Section 23, even right of residence is denied to her because right of residence is available to female Class-I heir only up to the time when she is married or after marriage if she has been widowed or abandoned by her husband, it Is not one of those cases. Thus, the trial Court and the appellate Court though are correct in law in adjudging the share of the plaintiff-respondent to 1/3rd, the decree would have to be restricted to division of the non residential property with a right in the residential property of getting it divided on the appellant and the respondent No. 2 deciding to partition the same. The question formulated thus is answered accordingly. 7. The appeal thus stands disposed of.