The decision of the special deputy commissioner under Section 10 of the Inam Abolition Act is final and binding on the parties, and cannot be challenged in a court of law except under the machinery provided under the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is the defendants' second appeal arising from the judgment and decree dated 9th july, 1987 delivered by (Sri K. Ishwar Bhat) the principal civil judge, bangalore district, bangalore in r. a. No. 16 of 1981 whereby the learned civil judge, dismissed the defendants' first appeal which had arisen from the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1979 passed in o. s. No. 240 of 1968 by the learned munsiff, doddaballapur, decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit for partition of 1/3 share in the suit properties and affirming the trial court decree.

( 2 ) THE following is the pedigree for the purpose of the case and decision.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that they are entitled to their 1/3 share in the properties in the suit which have been mentioned in schedule 'a' and schedule 'b' to the plaint. The plaintiffs also claimed for a decree for partition and separate possession of the aforesaid share by metes and bounds through the commissioner. They also prayed for a decree for mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession under Order xx, Rule 12, C. P. C. and for costs and for other reliefs.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs' claim has been that the properties in the suit as mentioned in the schedules a and b to the plaint, have been the joint family ancestral properties of the parties and that the share of The Plaintiffs-Respondents has been The VS. The Defendants Disputed the claim of the plaintiffs-respondent with respect to the properties of schedule a, but as regards to the properties in schedule b are concerned, there is no dispute at present. The properties of schedule b admittedly are only their ancestral and joint family property. The defendants-appellants' claim is that the properties of schedule a are not the joint ancestral properties of the parties. They claim that the plaintiffs did in no manner have any right in the properties of schedule a to the plaint. According to the case of the defendants the properties of schedule a have been self-acquired properties of the defendant 1 and of defendants 5 and 6. The defendants-appellants' case, has been that the plaintiffs and the defendants have not been the members of the undivided family at any point of time. According to the defendants, the first plaintiff had left the village some time in the year 1918 or 1919 and he was adopted by one mariyappa, somanathanahally. That on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as under :1. Whether the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient ?2. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are members of a joint hindu family ?3. Whether the suit 'a' scheduled properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants ?4. Whether the 1st plaintiff was adopted to one mariyappa of somathanahalli village ?5. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are in jointpossession of the suit properties. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share inthe suit 'a' schedule properties?7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to further mesneprofits ?8. Whether the suit is barred by time. 9. To what reliefs are the parties entitled ?

( 5 ) THE trial court i. e. , the learned munsiff after considering the evidence on record, held that the properties of plaint 'a' schedule are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit. He further found the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to 1/3 share in plaint a schedule properties. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits to the extent of the share. It further found that the suit is within time. The trial court held that the adoption has not been proved. Having recorded these findings, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs' claim, for partition and further directed for the initiation of the proceedings for preparation of the final decree. Having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree of t