2 although framed a lot many issues, he recorded a finding that the suit was not maintenable in view of the fact that the plaintiffs, who are daughters of the deceased, have no right to claim the partition unless the co-parceners decide to partition the property. On account of this finding, the learned judge of the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Against this finding, the plaintiffs preferred the first appellate before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal found that upon the death of the father of the plaintiffs the succession had opened and by virtue of provision contained in Section 6 of the Succession Act, they were entitled to share in the property left behind by their father. He, therefore, decreed the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that the finding of the Trial Court is correct and that of the first Appellate Court is incorrect. He submits that no female member has a right to claim the partition. The submission is not correct. As soon as the father died, the succession opened and the daughters got a right in a property left behind by their father. Under Section 6 of the Succession Act, daughter gets a right to seek partition of her share left behind by her father. In view of this, I do not see