JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.25/2004. The suit in question was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 22.01.2009. The plaintiff claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment and decree is before this Court in this appeal. 2. The plaintiff is the wife of late Prabhakar Kulkarni and the defendant is the wife of her deceased son Ramrao alias Ramachandra Kulkarni. The deceased son Ramrao who died on 17.11.2003 has left behind the plaintiff namely the mother and the defendant namely the wife as class I heirs. It is in that view, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking her half share in the immovable and movable properties left behind by her deceased son Ramrao. The defendant on being served the summons appeared and filed the written statement. The contention put forth therein is that the property in question is the self-acquired property of the deceased Ramrao alias Ramchandra Kulkarni and a partition had taken place between the husband and the defendant i.e. the mother as well as the brothers on 25.02.1999. It is contended that after the partition the deceased husband of the defendant was residing separately on an independent status separated from the joint family. In that view, it is contended that claim as put forth by the plaintiff seeking a share in the property is disputed and it was contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court on taking note of the rival contentions framed five issues for its consideration, which reads as hereunder; (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, all suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and defendant? (2) Do defendant proves that, there was a partition in the family properties between plaintiff and as well as her children on 20.02.99 and hence, suit properties are self- acquired properties of her husband? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get her share in the suit schedule properties? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit reliefs? (5) What order or decree? 4. The General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P12. The defendant examined herself as DW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.D1 to D47. (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit reliefs? (5) What order or decree? 4. The General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P12. The defendant examined herself as DW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.D1 to D47. 5. The trial Court on taking note of the evidence tendered before it and having kept in view the legal position has ultimately arrived at its conclusion. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties, from a perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court and the very nature of the contentions that is put forth, it is seen that the relationship of the parties and the nature of the claim as made is not in dispute but what is contended is the earlier partition and self acquisition. The trial Court while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff seeking a share of the property has taken note of the cross- examination of PW.1 wherein he had admitted with regard to the partition that had been effected between the family members in the year 1999. It is in that view, the trial Court has arrived at the conclusion since the joint family status had been severed by the partition in the year 1999. Hence held that the claim as put forth by the plaintiff is not sustainable. 6. In the instant facts what is necessary to be noticed is that the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 is another son of the plaintiff and the brother of the deceased Ramrao alias Ramchandra. The suit in question was not filed by the other family members nor had the plaintiff's mother Laxmibai included the other family members as defendant to claim a share in the joint family properties by partition in that sense. 7. On the other hand, the very specific case of the plaintiff is that being a class I heir of her deceased son she is entitled to a share in the property that was left behind by the deceased son by way of inheritance. It is in that view, the provision contained in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was pressed into service. It is in that view, the provision contained in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was pressed into service. The judgment would indicate that the trial Court has in fact taken note of the provision contained in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as also the schedule to that Act. From the extract as indicated therein itself, it is clear that in respect of a male Hindu dying intestate both the widow as well as the mother would be the class I heirs of the deceased. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendant will be class I heirs of Ramrao alias Ramchandra Kulkarni and as such both will be entitled to a share each in the property left behind by deceased. 8. A further elaboration of the said aspect of the matter need not be made since in a similar set of circumstance a learned Judge of this Court in the case of Basavalingamma (deceased by L.R.'s) and others v. Sharadamma reported in AIR 1984 Kar 27 has discussed this aspect of the matter and has held with regard to the entitlement and the share that is to be granted in such circumstance. If the legal position is kept in view and in the present facts where there is no dispute to the fact that the properties stood in the name of the deceased Ramrao, even if the contention of the defendant that it is the self-acquired property or that the late Ramrao had got the properties in an earlier partition are kept in view, the right of the plaintiff to seek a share as a class I heir cannot be denied. In that view, the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court is not justified. 9. Before parting with the case, it is also necessary to notice the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.106/2014 seeking partition and separate possession of all the properties indicated therein. However, considering the fact that the suit has been filed very recently, I do not see reason to make any observations on the said suit as it is for the parties to put forth all contentions in the said suit, if the same arises for consideration therein. However, considering the fact that the suit has been filed very recently, I do not see reason to make any observations on the said suit as it is for the parties to put forth all contentions in the said suit, if the same arises for consideration therein. A consideration herein is limited only to the aspect which was the subject matter in the suit and has arisen for consideration in this appeal and in that light the right has been determined. 10. In that view of the matter having arrived at the conclusion that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit, the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.25/2004 is set aside. Consequentially, the suit in O.S.No.25/2004 is decreed. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties. A decree be drawn to the said effect. Keeping in view the relationship of the parties they shall bear their own costs. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.