JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants’ second appeal having lost from learned two Courts below. 2. A suit for partition of agricultural land, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the suit property, has been filed by the plaintiff praying that she is having 1/3rd share in the suit property and it be delivered to her by effecting partition and accordingly a separate possession of that share be also provided to her. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was owned by Manghat whose son is Jalam (first defendant). After the death of Maghat, first defendant Jalam became the owner of the suit property and because plaintiff Ramkali is the daughter of deceased Chhattu who was the son of Jalam and who died during the lifetime of his father Jalam, she is deriving title from Chhattu and is praying that since in the entire suit property she is having 1/3rd share, the property of HUF be devolved and possession of 1/3rd share be given to her. The family tree which has been mentioned in para-1 of the plaint is as under :- Manghati (dead) Jalam Singh (dead) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Chhattu Babulal Pooran Prembai Panbai Kassi Chhotibai (dead) (Def.No.2) (Def.No.3) (Def.No.1-A) (Def. No.1-B) (Def. No.1-C) (Def. No.1-D) Janak Rani (wife) Shringar Rani (Def. No 5) (wife) (Def. No. 4) Wife Ramkali Bai (name not (Daughter) known) (plaintiff) 3. The first defendant Jalam before this death filed written-statement along with other defendants and denied the plaint averments. According to the defendants, the suit property is the self-acquired property of first defendant Jalam. During the pendency of the suit Jalam had died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. 4. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff holding that she is entitled to ¼ share in the suit property and is also entitled for partition and separate possession. 5. The first appeal which was filed by defendants has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants which was admitted on 3.9.2004 on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether Ramkali Bai is entitled to get ¼ share of essential (sic, indeed, it should be “ancestral”) property of Manghati?” 7. 6. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants which was admitted on 3.9.2004 on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether Ramkali Bai is entitled to get ¼ share of essential (sic, indeed, it should be “ancestral”) property of Manghati?” 7. The contention of Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellants is that looking to the admission of the plaintiff in her plaint that suit property was of Jalam, hence, during the lifetime of first defendant Jalam, the suit for partition could not have been filed by Chhattu (father of plaintiff) if he would have been alive and therefore, the plaintiff who stepped into the shoes of her father also cannot file the suit for partition. It has been further contended by him that irrespective of the fact that first defendant Jalam died during pendency of the suit, since the suit itself was premature and not maintainable during his lifetime, therefore, it ought to have been dismissed. 8. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 argued in support ofthe impugned judgment and submitted that learned two Courts below have arrived at a finding that the suit property was ancestral property and if that would be the position, no error has been committed by learned two Courts below decreeing the suit of plaintiff upto the extent of ¼ share. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Regarding Substantial Question of Law framed : 10. On bare perusal of the plaint averments it is gathered that Manghat was the owner of the suit property and after his death it vested in first defendant Jalam. It is also not in dispute that Jalam was alive when the suit was filed and he was arrayed as first defendant. Since as per plaintiff’s own showing Jalam was the owner of the suit property, according to me, in terms of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in brevity “the Act”) his property would devolve in his heir only after his death. Since as per plaintiff’s own showing Jalam was the owner of the suit property, according to me, in terms of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in brevity “the Act”) his property would devolve in his heir only after his death. Hence, according to me, when Jalam was alive, his son Chhattu (deceased-father of plaintiff) during his lifetime could not have filed the suit for partition, if he would have been alive, and hence, the plaintiff also cannot file suit for partition, because she is stepping into the shoes of her deceased-father Chhattu. After the commencement of the Act, under section 8 thereof the property of Hindu male would devolve in his heir and they can claim partition only after the death of male Hindu and not during his lifetime and therefore, according to me, during the lifetime of first defendant Jalam the property which was owned by him could not have been partitioned. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court, Chandrakanta and another v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 576 . 11. The substantial question of law is, thus, answered that plaintiff Ramkali Bai not entitled to get ¼ share of the property in dispute of Jalam during his lifetime. 12. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below is set aside and the suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs throughout. However, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Ramkali Bai shall now be free to file suit for partition because during the pendency of the suit Jalam had died. If such a suit is filed, it may be decided on its own merit determining her share.