JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Are the Courts below justified in holding joint status of Maguni with Banamali till the former death without at all considering the recitals and true import of the Gift Deed marked Ext-P and the Voter List of the year 1951, marked Ext-B along with other evidence on record? (b) Is the learned appellate Court correct in reversing the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of daughter-ship of the plaintiff, without any cogent and compelling reasons for such reversal and without scrutinizing the evidence laid on that score ? 2. The genealogy of the parties as stated by the plaintiffs is as follows : GENEALOGY Late Jagannath Ballav Das Late Maguni Late Banamali (1960/1955) (1965/1960) Wife Predeceased Wife Late Sebati died on (28-11-2004) (D.3/Respt. 6) Late Ramaballav Bishnupriya Late Sampada Son (predeceased) (plaintiff) (Mother of D.4) (Daughter) (Respondent No. 7) Kamalkanta Sachikanta Didulata Swarnalata (Son) (Son) (Daughter) (Daughter) (D.1) (D.2) Respt. No. 6(a) Respt. No. 6(a) 3. The plaintiff, i.e. Bishnupriya claimed that she along with the mother of the proforma defendant No. 4, i.e. late Sampada, were daughters of late Maguni and prayed for a preliminary decree of partition claiming 1/4th share each in the disputed property, which was succeeded by them from the common ancestor late Jagannath Ballav Das. 4. Both the Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that the mother of proforma defendant No. 4 and the plaintiff were daughters of Banamali and not Maguni. The said finding being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this Second Appeal as there is no error of law on the part of the learned Courts below to have arrived at the said finding of fact. The said finding being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this Second Appeal as there is no error of law on the part of the learned Courts below to have arrived at the said finding of fact. Now, considering the plaintiff-Bishnupriya and the mother of proforma defendant No. 4 late Sampada to be the daughters of Banamali and further taking note of the fact that during pendency of this appeal, the wife of Banamali i.e., late Sebati has expired on 28-11-2004, it is found that the plaintiff-Bishnupriya and the proforma defendant No. 4 will be entitled to a share out of the property succeeded by the late wife of Banamali i.e. Sebati as Banamali expired prior to 1956, i.e. on 6-1-1955 and Sebati, under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 became a limited owner over 1/3rd property left behind by Banamali and she became absolute owner thereon by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of Sebati during pendency of the Second Appeal, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No. 4 will succeed to the share of late Sebati along with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 6(a), who have been substituted in place of Sebati and her daughters along with the plaintiff and late mother of proforma defendant No. 4. Hence, the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 4 will each get 1/18th share over the disputed property. 5. In view of the above finding, the judgments of the Courts below by which the suit filed by Bishnupriya was dismissed cannot be sustained. The above findings are arrived at, as this Second Appeal is a continuation of the suit. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is disposed of with the finding that the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No.4 shall be entitled to 1/18th share each in the disputed property and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the respondent Nos. 6(a) and 6(b) shall also be entitled to 1/18th share each respectively excluding the Ac.0.11 decimals of land, which was gifted away by late Maguni in favour of the defendant No. 2, which has been upheld by the Courts below. The preliminary decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the aforesaid findings. 6. The Second Appeal is accordingly partly allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. Appeal partly allowed.