JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. The present first appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 13.09.2017 in O.S.No.697/2014, filed by the appellants. 2. The appellants are the two daughters of Mr. G. Shamarao and Smt. Rathnabai. Mr. G. Shamarao had acquired the schedule properties and there is no dispute that the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties, comprising of 05 Acres 23 Guntas in Sy.No.198, out of which, 01 Acre was converted for non- agricultural purposes situated at Sommanhalli, Bangalore South Taluk. G. Shamarao died in the year 1955, i.e. before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, enacted, and much before all its provisions came into force. Smt. Rathnabai died in the year 1984. G. Shamarao was survived by his wife, eight daughters including the two plaintiffs and son Govindaraju. Only two daughters, i.e. the plaintiffs were unmarried when G. Shamarao died. One plaintiff, viz. R.K. Saraswathi Bai got married on 28.04.1961, whereas, the other plaintiff Smt. Sakku Bai got married on 26.04.1959. 3. The two plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming partition of the schedule land which was a self-acquired property of late G. Shamarao. 4. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that all the suit scheduled properties, on the death of G. Shamarao, got devolved on the son, Govindaraju, to the exclusion of the mother and daughters and they cannot seek partition of the suit scheduled properties. The following issues came to the framed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings. "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/9 th share each in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant No.5 to 10 prove that they are entitled for 1/6 th share each in the suit schedule properties? 5. whether the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. To what decree or order?" 5. 4. Whether the defendant No.5 to 10 prove that they are entitled for 1/6 th share each in the suit schedule properties? 5. whether the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. To what decree or order?" 5. The point for determination in these two appeals is that, what law would be applicable in respect of the succession of the estate of late G. Shamarao, who died intestate in the year 1955. 6. Both the learned counsels for appellants and respondents are consensus ad idem to say that the provisions of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 would be applicable in the present case, and that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would have no application inasmuch as G. Shamarao died in the year 1955, before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 7. Thus, as mentioned above, it is not in dispute and it is admitted on behalf of both the parties that the suit scheduled properties were the self-acquired properties of G. Shamarao. Therefore, the suit scheduled properties cannot be treated as joint family properties or ancestral properties. In respect of the self-acquired property, Section 4 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, would be applicable, which provides as under: " 4. Order of succession :- (1) The succession to a Hindu male dying intestate shall, in the first place, vest in the members of the family of the propositus mentioned below, and in the following order. (i) the male issue to the third generation; (ii) the widow; (iii) daughters; (iv) daughters' sons; (v) the mother; (vi) the father; (vii) widows of predeceased sons; (viii) sons' daughters; (ix) daughters' daughters; (x) brothers of the whole blood; (xi) brothers of the half blood; (xii) sons' sons' daughters, sons daughters' sons, sons' daughters' daughters, daughters' sons' sons, daughters' sons' daughters, daughters' daughters' sons, and daughters' daughters' daughters; (xiii) widows of predeceased grandsons and great-grandsons. (2) On failure of the family of the propositus, the succession shall pass to the family of the father of the propositus mentioned below, and in the following order. (2) On failure of the family of the propositus, the succession shall pass to the family of the father of the propositus mentioned below, and in the following order. (i) brothers' male issue to the second generation; (ii) sisters; (iii) half sisters; (iv) sisters' sons; (v) half sisters' sons; (vi) the father's mother; (vii) the father's father; (viii) step-mothers; (ix) brothers' widows; (x) brothers' daughters; (xi) sisters' daughters; (xii) father's brothers of the whole blood; (xiii) father's brothers of the half blood; (xiv) brothers' sons' daughters, brothers' daughters' sons, brothers' daughters' daughters, sisters' sons' sons, sisters' sons' daughters, sisters daughters' sons, and sisters' daughters' daughters; (xv) widows of brothers' male issue to the second generation. (3) On failure of the family of the father of the propositus, the succession shall pass to the family of the paternal grandfather, and next thereafter to the family of the paternal great-grandfather, the members of each family ranking among themselves in the same relative order as the members corresponding to them in the family of the father. (4) On failure of the families of paternal ancestors to the third degree as above, the succession shall pass to the maternal ancestors to the third degree and their respective families, one after the other, and under the same rules mutatis mutandis as to relative order within each such family as are applicable to the families of the paternal ancestors. (5) The members (where there are more than one) of each of the groups indicated above by Roman numerals and of the groups corresponding to them under sub-sections (3) and (4) shall among themselves, take simultaneously and in equal shares (per capita), provided that the male issue of the propositus shall take according to stock (per stirpes). (6) Every reference to the son of a female relative in this section shall be read as excluding a son adopted after the death of such female relative." 8. It is also not in dispute that G. Shamarao died intestate, inasmuch as he did not leave any Will or Codicil in favour of any one. Section 4 provides the order of succession. It indicates a Hindu male dying intestate, succession of his estate on the legal heirs of the deceased would be as per order of succession provided in exclusion of others. Section 4 provides the order of succession. It indicates a Hindu male dying intestate, succession of his estate on the legal heirs of the deceased would be as per order of succession provided in exclusion of others. Thus, if a male issue is survived upto third generation, the whole property will devolve around the Hindu male issue upto third generation to the exclusion of all other legal heirs. If no one upto third generation in the male lineal degree is surviving, then only it will devolve on the widow, and if widow is not there, then, on daughters and so on, in the order as mentioned. 9. In the present case, the son of the deceased Govindaraju survived late G. Shamarao, and therefore, according to Section 4 of the Mysore Act, the suit scheduled properties would get devolved on Govindaraju to the exclusion of any other legal heirs/descendants, including mother and daughters. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants that the suit scheduled properties would devolve as provided under Section 8 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, does not appear to be correct. Section 8 is in respect of the 'Joint Family Property' and it defines the rights of the coparceners. It would be apt to extract the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act hereunder: "8. Certain females entitled to shares at partition: (1)(a) At a partition of joint family property between a person and his son or sons, his mother, his unmarried daughters and the widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them. (b) At a partition of joint family property among brothers, their mother, their unmarried sisters and the widows and unmarried daughters of their predeceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue shall be entitled to share with them. (c) Sub-sections (a) and (b) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a partition among other coparceners in a joint family. (d) Where joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the right to shares of the classes of females enumerated in the above sub-sections. (c) Sub-sections (a) and (b) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to a partition among other coparceners in a joint family. (d) Where joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship, it shall so pass subject to the right to shares of the classes of females enumerated in the above sub-sections. (2) Such share shall be fixed as follows:- (a) in the case of the widow, one-half of what her husband, if he were alive, would receive as his share; (b) in the case of the mother, one-half of the share of a son if she has a son alive, and, in any other case, one-half of what her husband, if he were alive, would receive as his share; (c) in the case of every unmarried daughter or sister, one-fourth of the share of a brother if she has a brother alive, and, in any other case, one- fourth of what her father, if he were alive, would receive as his share: Provided that the share to which a daughter or sister is entitled under this section shall be inclusive of, and not in addition to, the legitimate expenses of her marriage including a reasonable dowry or marriage portion. (3) In this section, the term "widow" includes, where there are more widows than one of the same person all of them jointly, and the term "mother" includes a stepmother and, where there are both a mother and a stepmother all of them jointly and the term "son" includes a stepson as also a grandson and a great-grandson; and the provisions of this section relating the mother shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the paternal grandmother and great-grandmother. (4) Fractional shares of the females as fixed above shall relate to the share of the husband, son, father or brother as the case may be and their value shall be ascertained by treating one share as allotted to the male and assigning therefrom the proper fractional shares to the female relatives. (4) Fractional shares of the females as fixed above shall relate to the share of the husband, son, father or brother as the case may be and their value shall be ascertained by treating one share as allotted to the male and assigning therefrom the proper fractional shares to the female relatives. (5) Each of the female relatives referred to in sub-section (1) shall be entitled to have her share separated off and placed in her possession: Provided always as follows: (i) No female relative shall be entitled to a share in property acquired by a person and referred to in Section 6, so long as he is alive; (ii) No female whose husband or father is alive shall be entitled to demand a partition as against such husband or father, as the case may be; (iii) A female entitled to a share in any property in one capacity of relationship shall not be entitled to claim a further or additional share in the same property in any other capacity." Thus, if properties are self-acquired properties, there is no question of any coparcener. Therefore, we are of the view that Section 8(1)(d) of the said Act has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. The Supreme Court, in the judgment of L. Gowramma (D) by LRs. Vs. Sunanda (D) by LRs. & Another , 2016 (3) SCC 356 has explained the scope of Section 8(1)(d) in paragraphs 16 and 18 which would read as under: "16. In fact, even the dissenting Judge held:- Clause (d) applies to a case when the family property passes by survivorship to a sole surviving coparcener. In such a case there can be no partition, as is the case under clause (a) or (b) or (c). Indeed, the property becomes incapable of partition and but for clause (d) no female relative would have any right to a share. To save such a result clause (d) provides that the rights of the female relatives should not be lost only by reason of the property passing to the sole surviving coparcener. Sub- section 5, furthermore, gives such female relatives as fall under sub- section 1 a right to have their shares separated and thus makes them co- sharers subject to whose rights the sole surviving coparcener takes the property. Sub- section 5, furthermore, gives such female relatives as fall under sub- section 1 a right to have their shares separated and thus makes them co- sharers subject to whose rights the sole surviving coparcener takes the property. Therefore, whereas under clauses (a), (b) and (c) the rights fluctuate according to the position of the female relatives in the family when the partition takes place there is no such uncertainty in the case falling under clause (d) as the sole surviving coparcener takes the property subject to the right to shares of female relatives falling under the provisions of clause (a) or (b) or (c). Such is the scheme of Section 8(1). 18. There is also another way of looking at the issue raised in the present appeals. A partition of joint family property among brothers is expressly mentioned in Section 8(1)(b). Therefore, upon partition of joint family property between Thimmappa and his older brother, it is only their mother, their unmarried sisters and widows and unmarried daughters of their pre-deceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue who get a share under the Section. Unlike sub- section (a), unmarried daughters of Thimmappa do not get any share at the partition between Thimmappa and his brother." Paragraph 18 thus makes it clear that in case a joint family property passes by survivorship to a sole surviving coparcener and in such a case, there can be no partition. Thus Section 8(1)(d) of the Mysore Act would be applicable in a case of joint family property only. 12. In the present case, as the son himself was surviving, the whole property of G. Shamarao devolved on his son, Govindaraju, upon the death of his father, G. Shamarao. We, therefore, do not find that any error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Mr. 12. In the present case, as the son himself was surviving, the whole property of G. Shamarao devolved on his son, Govindaraju, upon the death of his father, G. Shamarao. We, therefore, do not find that any error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No.2094/2017 submitted that, under Section 22 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, the mother, who died in 1984 was entitled for maintenance from the properties inherited by Govindaraju and after her demise in 1984, her rights in the properties since got fortified for maintenance, became absolute right as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore to the extent of rights of the deceased mother over the properties, the daughters would be entitled to their share under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 22 of the Act reads as under: 22. Females entitled to maintenance: (1) In addition to any others legally entitled to maintenance, a Hindu male, provided he is possessed of sufficient means, shall be bound to maintain the following female relatives. namely: (a) his stepmother. (b) his unmarried full sister until she attains majority. (2) Every person, male or female, who inherits the property of a Hindu male shall, to the extent of the property inherited, be bound to maintain the female relatives entitled to maintenance from such Hindu. (3) The manager of a joint Hindu family shall, to the extent of the property of the joint family in his possession or control, be bound to maintain the female relatives of every member thereof entitled to maintenance from such member: Provided that no female relative who is entitled to a share under Section 8 and who has obtained such share shall be entitled to claim maintenance." 14. We have not been able to understand this submission, as Section 22 of the Act is only a right to seek maintenance. Mother has never come to the Court saying that she was not maintained and she needed a part of the property for her maintenance. We have not been able to understand this submission, as Section 22 of the Act is only a right to seek maintenance. Mother has never come to the Court saying that she was not maintained and she needed a part of the property for her maintenance. When mother had no grievance about her maintenance and she never claimed any part or interest in the suit scheduled properties, we fail to understand that how a daughter can claim that she should be given the share which allegedly got perfected in favour of mother. Such a contention is not germane in the facts of the present case and therefore, we dismiss both the appeals.