is no partition by metes and bounds accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, then also after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 30 which proves that any Hindu may dispose of by Will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him or by her, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus and in the explanation, it is specifically mentioned that the interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property be deemed to be the property capable of being disposed of by him or by her within the meaning of this section. Now, therefore, even if the property is held to be the joint property then also a coparcener has the right to dispose of the same i.e. his share. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is that because the property is coparcenery property, the coparcener could not have sold the property. This relief claimed by the plaintiff is contrary to the provision as contained in Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further, in this case, separation has already been admitted. Whether there is partition or no partition is a matter that can be decided in properly constituted suit. Here, the question raised is as to whether a coparcener can sell his property or not?
