( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of plaint A schedule property from the fifth defendant and B schedule property from defendants 6 to 9 and for partition of C schedule properties into two halvas and for possession of one such half and finally for mesne profits of rs. 6,000/- and future mesne profits.

( 2 ) CHENNAIAH and Nsrasaiah are the sons of Ramaiah. Chennaiah had two sons, Appaiah and Narasinhaiah. Appaiah died in 1985 issueless leaving behind his widow Narasanma. Narasimhaiah died leaving behind his widow the first defendant and daughters who are defendents 2 and

( 3 ) NARASAIAH died leaving behind his sons, Subbaiah, Krishnaiah, Audaiah and Venkalarayudu. Krishnaiah, Audaiah and Venkatarayudu died. Subbaiah is alive. Venkatarayudu s son Is P. W. 4. Narasamma, the widow of Appaiah, adopted the plaintiff, who is the son of the fifth defendant. The fifth defendant married Narasamma s sister s daughter. Chennaiah gave A schedule property to Narasamma, the Plaintiff s adoptive mother, towards her maintenance in 1905 under the Original of Ex A. 5 narasamma s father Ramaiah and his son Narasaiah gave B schedule property to nerasamma for her maintenance with life interest in 1914 under the registered settlement deed. Ex. A 6. Narasimhaiah, the sole surviving coparcener executed a settlement deed conveying C schedule properties in favour of his wife, D. I, and his two daughters D2 and D3 under the original of Exa. B. 1, B2 and B. 3 on 1-4-1956. 3. The plaintiff claimed plaint A and B schedule properties as the adopted son of Narasamma and Appaiah and also half share in C schedule properties. In respect of A schedule property he claims that inasmuch as a life intrest was created under Ex A 5 in favour of Narasamma the adoptive mother of the plaintiff, Naresamma s rights in A schedule property became enlatged into an absolute one under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. and hence, he being the adopted son of Narasamma, is entitled to A schedule properties. In respect of B schedule proparties, the plaintiff claims that inasmuch as B schedule proposes were given to Narasamrna by her father and brother, Nerasamma is entitled to b schedule properties with absolute rights and consequently, he, being the adopted son of Narasamma, is entitled to B schedule properties.

( 4 ) IN respect of C Schedule property, the plaintiff contends that the C Schedule properties are joint family properties of his adoptive father appaiah, and Narasimhaiah the husband of the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3, and after the death of his adoptive father Appaiah, in 1904, Narasaiah had been in possession of the C Schedule properties as the Manager of joint family and Narasimhaiah is therefore not entitled to gift the joint family properties in favour of defendants 1 to 3, and the gift deeds are not binding upon the plaintiff insofar as his half share in C schedule properties is concerned and he is therefore, entitled to partition of C Schedule properties and possession of his half share.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 and defendants 6 to 9 resisted the suit, AM the contesting defendants contended that the adoption of the plaintiff by narasamrra is not true and valid They also sontended that imrespect of a schedule proparty, arasmma was given only life interest, and the vested remainder, therefore, had to go back to Narasimhaiah who was the sole surviving copaceter after the death of Appaiah, and the plaintiff s contention that the life interest was enlarged into an Absolute one under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Scuccession Act, is untenable They also contend that Narasimhash the sole surviving copercper gifted C schedule pollerties in favour of defendants 1 or 3 out of love and effection, end the gift deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 3 were therefore, valid and the plaintiffs claim for partition of C Schedule properties is untenable. The defendants, there are conterd that deferdants 1