ORDER 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Notice has been issued to the all the respondents but no one is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and 13 to 16. Ms. Neetic Sharma, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 and 12. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (defendant NO.1) questioning the judgment dated 12.09.2005 of the High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 964 of 2000. The High Court by its judgment partly allowed the Regular First Appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No.1 has come up in this appeal. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are: 4. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as described in the plaint. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 were sons of C.S. Veerappa who died on 29.11.1959. The mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 - Smt. Shanthaveeramma also died on 01.07.1992. The other defendants were sons, daughters and grandchildren of C.S. Veerappa. In the lifetime of C.S. Verrappa, a partition took place between him and his children. That partition was registered on 25.06.1958. In Survey No. 34, 22 cents were allotted to plaintiff and remaining 45 cents were allotted to defendant No.1. 5. Defendant No.1, in the lifetime of his father, sold an extent of 45 cents allotted to him in Survey No. 34 in favour of C.S. Veerappa and the plaintiff also sold an extent of 22 cents which came into his share in partition in Survey No.34 in favour of defendant No.1. 6. C.S. Veerappa died on 29.11.1959. Thereafter, a registered release deed dated 10.02.1960 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of his mother - Smt. Shanthaveeramma and a release deed was also executed by defendant No.1 and sisters in favour of their mother. The plaintiff purchased the property bearing Survey No. 106/1 on 26.05.1977 from Smt. Shanthaveeramma - the mother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also purchased Schedule 'B' property from Smt. Shanthaveeramma for Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.1983. Another sale deed was executed by Smt. Shanthaveeramma in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.02.1983 with regard to Schedule 'A' property for consideration of Rs.47,000/-. Smt. Shanthaveeramma had also executed Will on 15.07.1985 with regard to her jewellery, movables and cash in favour of the defendants. 7. After the death of Smt. Shanthaveeramma i.e. 01.07.1992, the plaintiff filed Original Suit NO. 27/94. Smt. Shanthaveeramma had also executed Will on 15.07.1985 with regard to her jewellery, movables and cash in favour of the defendants. 7. After the death of Smt. Shanthaveeramma i.e. 01.07.1992, the plaintiff filed Original Suit NO. 27/94. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, there were properties at Schedule 'A' and 'B'. Schedule 'A' (bearing Survey No. 34/2 measuring 0.37 acres), Schedule 'B' (bearing Survey No. 57/2 measuring 0.25 acres), Schedule 'C' contains movables, Schedule 'D' contains Fixed Deposit receipts and silver jewellery and articles of silver and Schedule 'E' contains gold jewellery. 8. The plaintiff case in the plaint is that the plaintiff mother was keeping ill and sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983 executed in favour of defendant No.1 were sham transaction. He further pleaded that the plaintiff has share in all the plaint Schedule properties. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs: 1) For a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are the family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the plaint schedule properties. 2) For a further declaration that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1985 is a sham and void document incorporating false recitals and the rank forged document and not binding over to the plaintiff. 3) To further declare that the alleged sale deeds dated 4.1.1983 and 5.2.1983 are sham and void documents and not binding over to the plaintiff. 4) For a direction for partition of the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bound and also allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. 5) Refer the preliminary decree to the Dy. Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri under Section 54 C.P.C. for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and also allotment of share to the plaintiff. 6) Allot 1/2 share to the plaintiff in plaint 'C', 'D' and 'E' schedule properties and delivery of the same to the plaintiff through the process of the court. 7) For a direction to an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 and 18 of C.P.C., 1908. 8) To render accounts. 9) Award cost of the suit and grant such other and further suitable reliefs be granted in favour of the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 9. 7) For a direction to an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 and 18 of C.P.C., 1908. 8) To render accounts. 9) Award cost of the suit and grant such other and further suitable reliefs be granted in favour of the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 9. A written statement was filed by defendant No.1 and other defendants. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, has stated that sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983 were legal documents executed by Smt. Shanthaveeramma for a valuable consideration. The Will dated 15.07.1985 was also validly executed by Smt. Shanthaveeramma. The allegation in the plaint that she was ill had been denied and it was pleaded that she was quite hale and hearty and was in a fit mental condition. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiff under Registered Deed of Release dated 10.02.1960 relinquished all his rights to claim, title and interest in favour of late Smt. Shanthaveeramma, hence, the plaintiff had no right to claim, title and interest in respect of Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties. 10. It is further pleaded that the other two sons including defendant No.1 also relinquished their right to claim, title and interest in respect of Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in favour of Smt. Shanthaveeramma under registered Release Deed dated 09.05.1963. The daughters also executed registered Release Deed dated 24.12.1973. The parties led oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 13.10.2000 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 12.09.2005 partly allowed the Regular First Appeal. 12. Defendant NO.1, aggrieved by the said judgment, has come up in this appeal. 13. Shri S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court committed an error in partly decreeing the suit to the extent of 1/6 share whereas the plaintiff had no share in Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and further, by Will the other scheduled properties were bequeathed in favour of the other defendants to which the plaintiff has no right. He submits that the plaintiff having relinquished his right in all properties by registered Release Deed dated 10.02.1960, he could not have claimed any further share in any of the scheduled property. He submits that the plaintiff having relinquished his right in all properties by registered Release Deed dated 10.02.1960, he could not have claimed any further share in any of the scheduled property. The challenge to Will executed by the mother was unfounded. He submits that the High Court committed an error in relying on Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') by holding that the plaintiff will also get a share in notional partition which will be presumed to have taken place just before the death of C.S. Veerappa. He submits that the High Court erred in not referring to the Release Deed dated 10.02.1960 executed by the plaintiff. Due to this Release Deed, the rights of the plaintiff, if any, are extinguished by the release in favour of the mother. There were no grounds to challenge the sale deed executed in favour of defendant NO.1. Further, the plaintiff having himself purchased one property from the mother in the year 1977, he was well aware that she was the owner of the scheduled properties. 14. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 15. From the facts, as noted above, there was no dispute between the parties that the partition was effected on 25.06.1958 by Registered Deed between C.S. Veerappa, the plaintiff, defendant No.1, third son and the daughter. 16. After the partition, the share was allocated to the plaintiff and defendant No.1, defendant NO.1 sold to the extent of 45 cents in favour of C.S. Veerappa and the plaintiff sold to the extent of 22 cents in favour of defendant NO.1. 17. After the death of C.S. Veerappa i.e. 29.11.1959, the plaintiff executed registered release deed in favour of the Smt. Shanthaveeramma on 10.02.1960. The Release Deed has been brought on record as Exhibit D-4 as Annexure P1. It shall be useful to extract following portion from the Release Deed which reads as follows: "We, all of us, in together have fixed the value of immovable property i.e. House in Madikeri town, movable properties and money lending papers. Since, it is impossible to take out one portion from these properties; I am releasing all my rights over the property by this deed on receiving the value of my share in the said property. Since, it is impossible to take out one portion from these properties; I am releasing all my rights over the property by this deed on receiving the value of my share in the said property. I have received the aforesaid Rs.10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) in presence of Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of this deed. Accordingly, consideration of this release deed is paid by you all. There is no balance due. I am retiring and releasing the legal rights from my share in the properties and money lending transactions which were in possession of aforesaid Sr. Late C.S. Veerappa. From now onwards I will have no rights over the properties and money lending transactions of Sr. C.S. Veerappa. We have came to a conclusion that that the approximate value of schedule property mentioned here under belonging to our father is Rs.64,500/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand five hundred only). The hand loan and other loan made by my father should be cleared, out of the value of said property. Accordingly one portion of the loan amount of Rs.63,000/- (Sixty three thousand rupees only) works out to be Rs.10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred) only, which is my share. As explained above I have set off my share on the said amount. Now onwards I will have no right over my father's share in the property. The immovable properties in my father's share are: After the partition of the house situated at the center of 0-01 1/2, Sy. No. 106/1, Municipality block No.5, Madikeri; a newly constructed house situated in the land belonging to Karnangeri village at 0-42 cents, Sy. No. 34, Municipality Block No. 24, Madikeri and another house adjacent to this house at Sy. No. 57, belonging to the same village; one Asmin car worth Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand only); one Revolver, one old typewriter, one Godrej Steel Stel and one Battery Recharger and money lending papers. Value of the Lease Deed executed by Adem Saheb, Madikeri in favour of late C.S. Veerappa Rs.2,500/- (Two Thousand five hundred only); trinote executed by the said Adem Saheb Rs.1,000/- (one thousand only) and fixed deposit of Rs.14,300/- (Fourteen thousand) only at The Canara Bank Co-operation Bank in the name of said Veerappa. In total the present market value of the property share of Veerappa is Rs.64,500/- (Sixty four thousand five hundred only). In total the present market value of the property share of Veerappa is Rs.64,500/- (Sixty four thousand five hundred only). In case, necessity of my signature arises in future in respect of any transactions regarding my father's property, I will assure of providing all my co-operation. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.10,500/- in respect of my share in my father's share is received in cash and now onwards I will have no right over the said property. Accordingly, I am executing this Release Deed. SCHEDULE PROPERTIES 1. Tile roofed house in 0-01 1/2 cents, Sy. No. 100/1, Municipality Block No.5, Madikeri. 2. all constructions of the new house in relayed area, 0-42 cents, Sy. No. 34, block 24. 3. Rakeem land at the center of houses, 0-25 cents, Sy. No. 57, Block No.24. 4. Asteen Car bearing No. MYV233; 1 revolver, 1 typewriter and Godrej Selt and 1 Battery recharger. Registered as document No.63 of 1960 of Book 1, volume 158, page 55/60; Registration fee 37-00 and charge extra 2-1 in (39-OO) Sub-registrar." 18. The Trial Court dismissed the suit relying on Section 14 of the Act and opined that by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, the mother - Smt. Shanthaveeramma became the sole owner. The High Court, in this context, referred to Sections 6 and 8 of the Act. It is useful to extract following observation of the High Court from its judgment: "In order to ascertain the share of heirs in the property of a deceased co-parcener, it is necessary in the very nature of things and as the very first step, to ascertain the share of the deceased in the co-parcenery property. For, by doing that alone can one determine the extent of the claimant's share. Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act resorts to the simple expedient, undoubtedly fictional, that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara co-parcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death .. Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act resorts to the simple expedient, undoubtedly fictional, that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara co-parcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death .. All the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out which means that the share of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life time of the deceased. The allotment of a share is not a processual step devised merely for the purpose of working out some other conclusion." 19. We are of the view that in so far as the view of the High Court that Section 14 was relied upon by Trial Court to hold Smt. Shanthaveeramma to be the sole owner was not applicable, is correct. In so far as the observation of the High Court that the interest in Mitakshara School of Coparcenery shall be deemed to be a share of the property that would have been allotted to him, had the partition would have taken place immediately before his death. The observations are based on Section 6 of the Act to which no exception can be taken. 20. In the property, which was with C.S. Veerappa who died on 29.11.1959, a notional partition can be imagined in which the plaintiff would receive share. What High Court missed is that the plaintiff himself by registered release deed dated 10.02.1960 has released all his rights in the Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and other properties in favour of his mother. After execution of the release deed by which relinquishing all his rights in favour of the mother, the right of the plaintiff, which he would have got on the basis of the partition as observed by the High Court, shall not continue with him and shall vest in the mother and thereafter it was the mother who became the owner of the property. The fact that on 26.05.1977 the plaintiff himself purchased property bearing Survey No. 106/1 from the mother itself makes it clear that it was the mother who was the owner of the property. The fact that on 26.05.1977 the plaintiff himself purchased property bearing Survey No. 106/1 from the mother itself makes it clear that it was the mother who was the owner of the property. Defendant No. 1 has also, by two sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983, purchased the property from the mother on a valuable consideration. The sale deeds have not been held to be invalid on any reason. The plaintiff having relinquished his land by virtue of release deed, the High Court committed an error in holding that he shall be entitled to 1/6 share in the Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. With regard to other Schedule 'C' to 'E' properties, the Will was executed by the mother on 15.07.1985. The High Court has not returned any finding that the Will was not valid. There being Will executed by Shanthaveeramma with regard to Schedule 'C' to 'E' properties, the beneficiaries under Will shall take their right as per the Will. The High Court came to the finding that the plaintiff was entitled to share of the father after his death which was held by Smt. Shanthaveeramma and that he will have 1/6th share in the other scheduled properties. The High Court committed an error in holding that Will in favour of defendant No. 1 by Smt. Shanthaveeramma is not binding to the extent of the plaintiff's right. The plaintiff having relinquished his right, there was no question of the Will not being binding on the plaintiff. Whatever were bequeathed by the mother by Will were properties in Schedule 'C' to 'E' which were her own property. She was fully competent to bequeath the movables belonging to her. 21. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. In result, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of Trial Court is restored. 22. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.