ORDER

1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the final judgment and decree dated 19-12-1997 in Regular Second Appeal No. 454 of 1991 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The learned Single Judge with some modifications regarding the share to be inherited by the parties has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in RA No. 31 of 1985. The first appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in OS No. 23 of 1983.

2. To appreciate the dispute between the parties, it would be useful to refer to the inter se relationship of the appellant and the respondents. The genealogy tree of the family is as under:

Narasappa (died)

Shankarawwa (died)

Gurubasamma

Mudamma (Defendant 1)

Kasturi (Defendant 2)

Dhanna (Defendant 3)

Laxmibai (Defendant 4)

Sharnamma (Defendant 5)

Sidramawwa (Defendant 6)

Basawwa (Defendant 7)

Basavarajappa (Defendant 8)

3. Narasappa died intestate on 13-5-1982 leaving behind an adopted son - the appellant herein and seven daughters and a granddaughter. The appellant is the son of Shankarawwa, daughter of Narasappa, who had predeceased him. Narasappa adopted the appellant on 9-5-1978. His natural father gave him in adoption. The ceremonies of giving and taking in adoption were performed in the house of Narasappa in the presence of their spiritual guru. Narasappa got the adoption registered as well on 14-12-1978 which has been signed both by Narasappa and the natural father of the appellant. Narasappa owned ancestral property consisting of land and houses described in Schedule A attached with the plaint.

4. After the death of Narasappa, Gurubasamma (one of the daughters of Narasappa) Respondent 1 herein, filed a suit claiming 1/8th share in the property left behind by Narasappa. The appellant who was the adopted son of Narasappa contested the suit. Others who had been arrayed as co-defendants with him did not contest the suit seriously.

5. On completion of the pleadings, the trial court framed various issues. Parties led their evidence. The trial court, on the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant had been validly adopted on 9-5-1978 and the adoption deed was got registered on 14-12-1978. Properties were held to be ancestral in nature. The trial court on the basis of these findings concluded that the appellant became a coparcener with his adoptive father Narasappa and after his death, half share of the property owned by Narasappa devolved on the appellant by survivorship and the remaining half fell to the share of Narasappa on a deemed partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") and the half share which fell to the share of Narasappa was to be treated as self-acquired property. Narasappa had died without leaving a Will. The half share which came to d Narasappa under the deemed partition was held to be divisible in equal shares i.e. 1/9th each to the plaintiff and the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff - Respondent 1 was held entitled to 1/18th share of the entire property left behind by Narasappa except the dwelling house which was given to the appellant in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff - Respondent 1 filed an appeal in the Court of Civil Judge, Yadgir which was numbered as RA No. 31 of 1985. Before the first appellate court, the counsel appearing for Respondent 1 did not contest the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the validity of adoption of the appellant and the nature of the property being ancestral. Findings on these two issues f were affirmed. The first appellate court took the view that Narasappa had become the absolute owner of the properties being the sole surviving male member of the joint Hindu family and the adoption made by him did not divest him of the absolute ownership of the properties. This view was taken by the court on the