ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: There is no serious dispute about the fact that Venkata Raju and Pullam Raju continued to be members of the family as can be seen from the allegations in the plaint. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Section 6 of the Act prior to amendment. “Explanation 1:- For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation 2:- Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein”. 11. Therefore, when Pullam Raju did not leave behind any female heir or legal heir through his explanation will not operate and by virtue of Section 6 of the Act by virtue of survivorship, the property will devolve upon Venkata Raju. Consequently, the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff cannot claim any rights in the property.