The main legal point established is the validity of adoption and the entitlement of the adopted son to a share in the ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act.

N. KUMAR, J.-This appeal is preferred by defendants-1 and 2 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession declaring that plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share each in respect of suit properties.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the original suit.

3. Plaintiffs-1 to 3 and defendant No. 1 are the children of Channapillegowda and his wife Smt. Kempamma. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Third defendant is the husband of the first defendant and natural father of the second defendant. 4th defendant is the purchaser of item of the schedule property.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that Channapillegowda, died about 13 years back, leaving behind him, his widow namely Kempamma and plaintiffs and the first defendant to succeed to his estate. Kempamma also died about a year back. Therefore plaintiffs and first defendant are the only heirs who have succeeded to theestate of the deceased Channapillegowda. The properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint are all self acquired properties of deceased Channapillegowda. After the death of Channapillegowda, his widow Kempamma was looking after the management of the entire schedule properties. After her death, the defendants have developed hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs, setting up false claim and secretly attempting to get the revenue records of the schedule properties changed to her son's name, stating that he is the adopted son of Kempamma. So far to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the first defendant's son is not adopted either by Channapillegowda or Kempamma. Even if such a document came into existence, it is fraudulent document behind the back of the plaintiffs, which will not give any right to the defendants. The plaintiffs' request to the defendants to have a partition in the family did not have any result. The defendants went on evading and ultimately refused to consent for the division. Therefore the plaintiffs have no option except to file the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share. In the schedule, the plaintiffs have set out the land bearing Sy. No. 6, which is situated at Kachenahalli Village as item No. 1 of the schedule. Item No. 2 are the lands which are situated at Haralahalli Village which are 8 in number. Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the house properties. The properties are more fully described in the schedule with boundaries and extent.

5. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. The first defendant filed written statement. She admitted the relationship between the parties. She contended that except item No. 1, all other items of the plaint schedule are self acquired properties of her father and they are his separate properties. To the knowledge of the plaintiffs deceased Channapillegowda and his wife Kempamma took J. Manjunatha, the son of first defendant in adoption and in that connection subsequently both of them have executed a registered adoption deed dated 10.10.1979. Since the date of adoption, the said J. Manjunatha, is the adopted son of Channapillegowda and Kempamma and he was living with them as their son. Subsequently, Channapillegowda executed a registered Will when he was in sound disposing state of mind on 12.11.1980 bequeathing his half share in the schedule properties in favour of his adopted son J. Manjunatha. After the death of Channapillegowda, J. Manjunatha became the absolute owner of the entire suit properties. During the minority of J. Manjunatha, his adopted mother Kempamma was in management and after he attained the majority, he has taken over the management. J. Manjunatha is the absolute owner of the suit properties and he is in possession of the suit properties. The first defendant is not the owner and she is not in possession in any of the suit properties. The suit against the defendants is not maintainable. The suit sh