1. After the decision of the Full Bench See : AIR 1940 Nag 305 (FB) only two points remain. The first relates to the fields Survey Nos. 17, 5/2, 6/2, 63/2 and 88. Both sides are agreed that the shares which defendants 6 and 7, Janrao and Dnyandeo, have in these fields should be released from the mortgage. But they are not agreed about the extent of their shares. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the family consists of Govinda (defendant 4), and his two sons, Janrao and Dnyandeo, (defendants 6 and 7), and the mother of the sons, defendant 5, Saraswatibai. The learned counsel contends that each would have a share on partition and therefore the extent of defendants 6 and 7's interests is only one-half and so that is all that can be released. The contention of the other side is that if the mother is taken into account then her share would also have to be excluded and that would leave the plaintiffs with only one-fourth. But, they say, no question about her share has been raised hitherto and so all they claim is two-third. We think this is sound. If the mother's rights are to be taken into account, then the plaintiffs can only get one-fourth because the mother