S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 5/2008 dated 12.11.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. CJM, Holenarasipura whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 145/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Holenarasipura has been confirmed. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. It is her case that she was married to Venkatesha on 14.4.2005. Venkatesha died on 1.9.2005. After his demise, the defendants neglected to maintain her. They refused to give her a share in the family properties.

2. The first defendant filed her written statement, which is adopted by defendant Nos. 2 to 5. In the written statement, defendants have admitted that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. They have also admitted their relationship with the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. The share of late Venkatesha is 1/6th and 1/6th share of Rangegowda has to be divided amongst six members. As such, Venkatesha has got 1/6 + 1/36 = 7/36. In view of notional partition between mother Smt. Kalamma and Venkatesha, the share of Kalamma comes to 7/72 (7/36 x 1/2 = 7/72) and that of Venkatesha is 7/72. In this 7/72, the share of the plaintiff is 1/2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for 7/144th share (7/72 x 1/2 = 7/144). They have prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that cash and ornaments were given to 2nd defendant at the time of her marriage towards her share in the family properties as contended?

2. What is the quantum of share in the properties for which plaintiff is entitled to?

3. What decree or order?

4. The plaintiff got herself examined as P.W1. The first defendant was examined as D.W1. In her evidence, D.W1 has stated that the plaintiff was remarried to Manju @ Manjegowda during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court has decreed the suit holding that plaintiff is entitled to 50% of 7/36th share in the suit schedule properties.

5. The appeal filed by the defendants challenging the said decree was dismissed by the first appellate Court on 12.11.2009 by holding that the defendants have failed to establish the remarriage of the plaintiff. The defendants have filed this appeal challenging the decree of the first appellate Court.

6. The appellants have filed an application-Misc. Cvl. No. 642/2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, 5th appellant has stated that the appellant was married to Manju @ Manjegowda on 22.12.2006. She has given birth to a male child on 28.12.2008. The appellants were not able to secure the records when the case was pending before the trial Court or the first appellate Court.

7. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

Whether a Hindu widow is entitled to inherit her deceased husband's share in the joint family properties after her remarriage?

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that since the plaintiff was remarried after the death of her husband Venkatesha, she is not entitled for any share in the family properties. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 in her evidence has brought to the notice of the trial Court the remarriage of the plaintiff. The defendants were not able to produce the documents evidencing her remarriage. They were able to get the birth certificate of plaintiffs child and other documents after the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the application for production of additional documents may be allowed.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not present before the Court. Sri G.S. Balagangadhar, learned Counsel has assisted the Co