JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J.
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a grandmother gets a share in the family property on a partition between her grandsons. The facts are as follows: One Nain Sukh Das was the owner of certain property. He died leaving a widow, Musammat Gaura at and a son, Chunni Lal. The names of both the above persons were entered in the revenue papers on the property of the deceased. Chunni Lal died about 9 years ago. In the year 1920 there was some dispute between his two sons, Kanhaiya Lal, the present plaintiff, and Makhan Lal, the present defendant, about the partition of the family property. The matter was referred to arbitration and under an award each of the above-mentioned two brothers was given half of the property. To this partition Musammat Gaura, the mother of Chunni Lal, was no party. After the award the present plaintiff wanted to have the name of Musammat Gaura expunged from the revenue papers but she objected successfully and hence the present suit for a declaration that he was the owner of half the property detailed in the plaint and Musammat Gaura has no interest in it. Musammat Gaura who was made a defendant pleaded that she was entitled to a share equal to that of her grandsons. The First Court came to the conclusion that on a partition between her grandsons Musammat Gaura was entitled to a share equal to that of the grandsons and decreed the claim of the plaintiff for 7/8 ths of the property in dispute, dismissing it as to 1/8th which was the half share of Musammat Gaura in the property claimed by the plaintiff, the other half of her share being in the share of the other grandson, Makhan Lal. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has agreed with this view of the lay and confirmed the decree of the First Court except as to some formal amendment in the decree. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal, and the only point argued before me by his learned Vakil is that under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law a grandmother gets no share on partition amongst her grandsons. His learned Vakil relied on the case of Sheo Narain v. Janki Parshad 16 Ind. Cas. 88 : 34 A. 505 : 9 A.L.J. 749 (F.B.), but that case was about the grandmother getting a share on partition between her own son and his sons, and is no authority for the proposition that a grandmother gets no share on partition between her grandsons: The only other case of this Court in which reference has been made to this matter is the case of Radha Kishen Man v. Bachhaman 3 A.I 8 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 64 and at page 122 the learned Judges say, "But the lower Court is wrong in giving the plaintiff's grand-mother a share on partition." No authority is cited and no reason is given, for this expression of opinion. The only text in the Sacred Books of the Hindus, relating to this matter is the text of Vyasa which does recognise this right. It is referred to in the Full Bench case of Sheo Narain v. Janki Parshad 16 Ind. Cas. 88 : 34 A. 505 : 9 A.L.J. 749 (F.B.), but as the point did not arise directly in the Full Bench case aforesaid the learned Judges did not express an opinion on this difficult question. Messrs West and Buhler in their Book on Hindu Law, 4th Edition, page 712, lay down the same proposition of law, so also does Mr. Shyama Charan Sarkar in his Vyavastha Chandrika, Volume II, part 1, at page 356. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sheo Dyal Tewaree v. Judoonath Tewaree 9 W.R. 61, a case under the Benares School, laid down the same rule of law, namely that a grandmother gets an equal share with her grandsons on partition between them I am therefore, of opinion that, having regard to Vyasa's text, the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived is a right conclusion. I therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.