( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Karwar, in R. A. No. 10 of 1987, dated 13-9-1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil judge, Karwar in O. S. No. 10 of 1977, dated 11-9-1987.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows: the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that she is the owner of the A schedule property and entitled to possession of the same and in the alternative that she is the adopted daughter of Yeshwanti and wherefore she is entitled to declaration of title in respect of the schedule properties. In the alternative for partition and possession of one half share in A and B schedule properties.

( 3 ) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaint schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs mother Yeshwanti Tai Soiru ankolekar who died on 17-3-1961 at Bombay. Defendant 1 is the genative son of the said Yeshwanti and the plaintiff is the daughter by adoption. The plaintiff was brought up by Yeshwanti ever since the plaintiff was a child of 2 months and she was later taken in adoption by the said Yeshwanti and thus recognised as the full daughter of the said smt. Yeshwanti. Defendant 2 is the wife of defendant 1 and defendants 3 to 5 are the tenants who are occupying the second frontal rooms of the ground floor of the house building at plaint serial No. 4. It is further averred that Yeshwanti was residing at Bombay and from her profession she has made vast earnings, she got built the suit house besides acquiring all the properties and by her last Will and testament dated 22-5-1957 she disposed of her properties and bequeathed the same to the plaintiff and defendant 1. Item Nos. 1 to 4 of plaint A schedule property was bequeathed in favour of plaintiff and Item Nos. 5 and 6 described in b schedule were bequeathed to defendant 1 and after the death of yeshwanti the Will was acted upon and the defendant unauthorisedly got his name entered in the schedule properties despite right of the plaintiff and thereafter an application was made by the plaintiff and ultimately revenue authorities asked the parties to settle the matter before the Civil Court and wherefore the suit.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint that plaintiff is the adopted daughter of Yeshwanti. It is averred that defendant 1 is the only legal representative of yeshwanti. The defendants denied the execution of the Will be in favour of plaintiff and defendant 1 as averred in the plaint and averred that the said Will is concocted and plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in the suit. They also claimed possession, perfection of title by adverse possession and averred that suit is barred by time and plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues. On behalf of the plaintiff was examined as p. W. 1 and she also examined P. Ws. 2 to 5 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 51 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D. W. 1 and got marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 57. The Trial Court after considering the contention of the parties and the material on record by its judgment dated 11-9-198" negatived the contention of the plaintiff that she is the adopted daughter of Yeshwanti and held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the Will Ex. P. 7, dated 22-5-1957 and wherefore entitled to declaration and possession of A schedule properties in view of the bequeath under the Will and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part. The finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove adoption as averred in the plaint was not challenged by the plaintiff. However, the defendants preferred R. A. No. 10 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Karwar, and the learned District Judg