( 1. ) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 10/1994 dated 19th August 1997 on the file of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Dharwad. R. F. A. No. 734/1997 is by the defendants-1 to 4, R. F. A. No. 755/1997 is by the plaintiff.

( 2. ) PARTIES will be referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court. Suit is one for partition and separate possession of l/6th share by metes and bounds.

( 3. ) PLAINTIFF is the mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 5. Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 are children of defendant No. 1. The genealogy of the family is as under : Venkanagouda Patil died on 24-1-1964, leaving behind the plaintiff-wife, defendant no. 1 - son and defendant No. 5 - daughter. After the death of Venkanagouda Patil, defendant No. 1 relinquished his right, title and interest over the suit property in favour of his then minor sons - defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by means of mutation entry No. 2507. Accordingly, the names of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were mutated in the record of rights both to the agricultural lands and the house properties. It is because of the said entry in the record of rights, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are also made as party to the suit.

( 4. ) PLAINTIFF alleged that, she and defendant no. 5 grew chilly, cotton, wheat and jowar crops in the suit property. Defendant No. 1 -son in the capacity of guardian for defendant nos. 2 to 4 and taking the advantage of the old age of the plaintiff, he tried to evict her from the suit property. Suit properties are joint family properties and there is no partition and, despite her repeated request for partition and separate possession of her share, defendants 1 to 4 are neither partitioning the suit properties nor allowing her to take her crop grown on the lands. Plaintiff claimed 1/6th share for herself and for defendant No. 5.

Defendant No. 1 on his behalf and also on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 - minor children filed written statement. Defendants admitted the relationship of the parties. However, he alleged that, defendant No. 5 got married about 18 to 20 years back and at the time of marriage, she was given 15 tholas of gold and Rs. 10,000/- cash towards her share in the suit schedule properties, and alleged that, she has no right, title and interest in the suit property. Further alleged that, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 never cultivated the lands nor they have any right in the suit property. Further alleged that, plaintiff as a mother, she cannot maintain a suit for partition in respect of co-parcenery property. Defendants denied the share of the plaintiff.

( 5. ) BASED on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable ?

2. Whether the plaintiff has got share in the suit properties? If so, to what extent ?

3. Whether the defendant No. 5 has got share in the suit properties ? If so, to what extent ?

4. Whether defendant No. 5 proves that the land Sl. No. 338 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas of Nalvadi village and open space meant for background, is also joint family property of plaintiff and defendants ?

5. Whether Krishnagouda, Basanagouda sheshanagoudar is necessary party to this suit?

6. To what relief, plaintiff is entitled ? 7. What decree or order ?

( 6. ) BEFORE the trial Court, plaintiff got herself examined as P. W. 1; defendant No. 1 got himself examined as D. W. 1, he also examined two witnesses as D. Ws. 2 and 3. Plaintiff produced Exs. P1 to P5, however, defendants did not produce any document.

Trial Court relying on the judgments reported in ILR 1997 Kar 40 in the matter of ramachandra Bhimappa Murgod v. Sushila and other judgments of this Court and the apex Court held that the widow can maintain a suit for partition against her son and also held that the plaintiff is entitled for l/6th share in the suit schedule property.

( 7. ) SRI V. T. Rayaraddi, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 4 submitted that, the plaintiff being a mother, she on her own cannot main