Judgment : 1. This second appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 29th December, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No.3358 of 1983. By this judgment, the learned District Judge had set aside the decree for partition passed by the trial Court. 2. Fact leading to the present litigation are as under: The original plaintiff was Chandrabai widow of Laxman. She came to Court with following complaint: "Chandrabai asserted that her husband Laxman died in 1954 leaving behind the suit property. The suit property is a piece of land admeasuring 2 acres 34 Gunthas at village Ravvankkola, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded. She said that on the death of her husband which occurred in 1954, she become entitled to half share in the suit land and said that remaining half share would go to her only son Sangram. The partition did not take place between Sangram and Chandrabai. Her son Sangram continued management of the land. In the course of time, Sangram had some debt and dealt with the land by transferring it to Venkatram who was original defendant No.1." 3. There was dispute between Venkatram and Sangram about the nature of transaction. On one hand, Sangram asserted that the transaction was mortgage and Venktram asserted that it was out an out sale. It is further admitted fact that Sangram and Venkatram have litigation on mortgage. During the pendency of that suit, Sangram died and his widow and minor daughters were made parties. Significant note is, Chandrabai was not made party to the suit. The suit ended in compromise. Sangram's widow for herself and her minor daughters gave up right to the suit property in favour of Venkatram. It is thereafter, the present litigation started in 1982. Chandrabai filed suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit land. She also sought injunction. In view of the earlier development and death of Sangram, Chandra was required to make Sangram's wife and minor daughters parties to the suit also. The suit was opposed mainly by the original defendant No.1 Venkatrao. His main contention was that since Laxman, husband of Chandrabai died prior to enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Chandrabai would not get any share in the suit property. The suit was opposed mainly by the original defendant No.1 Venkatrao. His main contention was that since Laxman, husband of Chandrabai died prior to enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Chandrabai would not get any share in the suit property. While the case was before the trial Court, no one discussed as to whether the Chandrabai was entitled to any share in the suit land being heir of her son Sangram. 4. Be that as it may, the question before the Court was, whether Chandraba was entitled to any share in the suit property. The learned Judge held that she did not have such share. He referred to Section 3(2) of the Hindu Womens' Right to Property Act, 1937. He held that Chandrabai, on her husband's death in 1954, had some interest as her deceased husband had at the time of his death. He, therefore, upheld her claim that she had half share in the suit land. The suit was decreed. 5. Vekatram filed an appeal in lower Appellate Court and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court held that Chandrabai had no right to the suit property and therefore was not entitled to partition. In view of this, the only substantial question of law that arise in this appeal is, whether Chandrabai-original complainant had share in the suit property on her husband's death which occurred prior to 1956? 6. Chandrabai, on her husband's death, become widow. Right of such widow is defined in the provisions of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 937. This Act was in force prior to 1956 when Chandra's husband died. Section 3 of this Act reads as under: "3. 6. Chandrabai, on her husband's death, become widow. Right of such widow is defined in the provisions of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 937. This Act was in force prior to 1956 when Chandra's husband died. Section 3 of this Act reads as under: "3. Devolution of property.- (1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property, and which a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow all his widows together, shall, subject to the provisions of sub section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son: Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is not son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner, as a son's son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son; Provided further that the same provisions shall apply mutatids mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased son. (2) When a Hindu governed by any School of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga School or by customary laws dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had. (3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Women's estate, provided however, that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an estate which by a customary or other rule of succession or by the terms of the grant applicable thereto descends on a single heir or to any property to which the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies." 7. In this part of out country, admittedly Mitakshara Hindu law is applicable to the parties. In this part of out country, admittedly Mitakshara Hindu law is applicable to the parties. Sub section 2 clearly lays down a rule that if Hindu who is governed by any school of Hindu law other than Dayabhaga at the time of his death had interest in Hindu Joint family property, then at the time of his death, his widow would inherit such share in such property. In other words, this provision indicates that on the date of his death if he had half share in the ancestral property, his widow would get half share. In this case, Laxman and his son Sangram form a joint family and coparceners. They hold joint family property which was the suit land. On the death of Laxman, Sangram has half share and Chandrabai would get half share in the suit land. 8. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court right decreed the suit. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, while discussing the provisions of Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, rightly opined that this Act introduced substantial changes in old Hindu Law. He even indicated that widow has become coparcener etc. but latter, due to the other facts of the case, apparently got confused and erroneously held that because of the subsequent facts, Chadrabai lost her right to partition and possession. I am purposely not discussing the other aspects of the case i.e. whether the transaction between Venkatrao and Sangam was mortgage or out an out sale, whether Sangram's widow had right to deal with her minor daughters' property at the time of entering into compromise etc. These questions, according to me, are beyond the scope of this litigation. I am told that daughters of Sangram are now major and are now litigating as legal representatives of their grandmother Chandrabai. Their appeal to the extent of Chandrabai's share would succeed. It must also be held that they would be entitled to decree of partition and separate possession over the suit land to the extent of half share. It is further necessary to hold that transaction between Sangram and Venkatram would not bind their right to partition and separate possession of their share as given to them above. 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly.