( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 01. 12. 2005 in O. S. No. 7/2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Srirangapatna, partly decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintifffor partition.

( 2 ) THE appellants in R. F. A. No. 411/2006 were the defendants 2 to 9 before the trial Court, whereas the appellant in R. F. A. No. 596/2006 is the first defendant before the trial Court and whereas the first respondent in both the appeals was the plaintiff before the trial court. For convenience, the parties in this judgment are referred to by their status before the trial Court.

( 3 ) IN filing the plaint, the plaintiff had contended that she and first defendant developed love towards each other and they were living together at one point of time. That subsequently on 06. 01. 1994 the plaintiff and first defendant got married at Sri. Lakshmi Narayana temple, K. R. Pet town. That out of this wedlock between the plaintiff and first defendant, a male child was born on 23. 03. 1994 and the child died immediately after an hour of its birth. That when the male child was in the womb of the plaintiff, the first defendant executed a registered release deed on 19. 01. 1994 in favour of defendants 2 to 9 relinquishing all his rights in the schedule properties in their favour. That the schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of defendants and the deceased son of plaintiff died as stated above. The alleged release deed dated 19. 01. 1994 is hostile to the interest of the minor son of the plaintiff and therefore the same was not binding. The plaintiff's son died on 23. 03. 1994. That the plaintiff succeeded to her undivided share of her son in the schedule properties. That despite repeated requests and demands, the defendants had refused to divide and partition of the schedule properties and having no other alternative, the plaintiff had filed O. S. No. 7/2000 for partition and separate possession of her 5/63rd share in the schedule properties, if necessary by setting aside the release deed dated 19. 01. 1994, and further to render accounts thereon and for such other reliefs.

( 4 ) THE first defendant entered appearance before the trial Court and filed his written statement admitting the marriage between him and the plaintiff. In the written statement he had denied that the plaintiff had given birth to a male child on 23. 03. 1994. However the first defendant admitted therein that on 19. 01. 1994 he executed a registered release deed relinquishing all his rights in the schedule properties in favour of defendants 2 to 9 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and that the said consideration of Rs. 60,000/- was deposited by him in the name of plaintiff in F. D. A/c. No. 1/1994 for Rs. 50,000/- and further that he had deposited a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- in S. B. A/c. No. 3755 in her name at Vijaya Bank. However in the written statement he had opposed the claim of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her share to an extent of 5/63rd share as claimed by her in filing the suit.

( 5 ) THE second defendant filed a separate written statement inter alia contending therein that the suit is not maintainable. The second defendant further denied that plaintiff gave birth to a male child on 23. 03. 1994. It was further contended in the written statement that the first defendant had since relinquished all his rights in the schedule properties under a registered release deed dated 19. 01. 1994 and as such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and thus opposed the claim of plaintiff. Other defendants in the suit had adopted the written statement of the second defendant.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues and the additional issue. The issues and additional issue read thus: issues

I. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properti