The appellants are the legal representatives of the original defendant by name Durgappa son of Hanumappa. Plaintiff’s name is also Durgappa son of Durgavva. He claims to be the adopted son of Ningappa in OS No.117/1997. The plaintiff Durgappa filed a suit for following reliefs:

(i) for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property measuring 31 guntas in survey No.25/8P situated in Kundawada village, Davangere Taluk and

(ii) for cancellation of revenue entries made in the name of the defendants and

(iii) for mesne profits and for such other reliefs against the defendant.

The original defendant Durgappa appeared before the trial Court and contested the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Davangere in RA No.114/2002. The said court reversed the findings of the trial Court and partially decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting relief of recovery of possession against the defendant.

The defendant preferred an RSA in No.2763/2006. This Court on consideration of the materials on record set aside the orders passed by the first appellate court and remitted the matter for fresh disposal with certain observations. After remand, again the said RA No.117/2002 was reheard by the first appellate court and vide judgment dated 17.11.2012, the first appellate court has again allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court in OS No.117/1997 dated 16.4.2002 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession, however, dismissed the suit for remaining prayers. Again being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present RSA is preferred by the aggrieved defendant.

2. This court after hearing the parties framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff does not come under the ambit of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?

(2) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in allowing the appeal solely relying upon Ex.P2, a Will, when the same was not proved?

(3) Whether the courts below were justified in relying on Ex.P3, the re-grant order with the survey No.25/8P measuring 1 acre 22 guntas was re-granted jointly to the plaintiff and Kariyavva?

In order to answer the above said three substantial questions of law it is just and necessary to have the brief factual aspects of the case of the plaintiff and defendant, as per their pleadings, and as to what happened before the trial Court and the first appellate court and how the courts have dealt with the case of the parties.

3. The plaintiff Durgappa (respondent herein) has filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property i.e., to the extent of 31 guntas in Survey No.25/8P of Kundawada village of Davanagere Taluk out of 1 acre 22 guntas. The plaintiff has claimed that he is the adopted son of Ningappa r/o. Kundawada. Ningappa and his wife Kariyawwa had no issues. Hence, they have taken the plaintiff in adoption as per the custom prevailing in their community when the plaintiff was aged 10 years. The said Ningappa and Kariyawwa were enjoying the above land which is an inam land (precisely the suit schedule property) by performing begaar duties as assigned by the Government. It is his further case that, during the life time of Ningappa, he had executed a registered Will dated 16.11.1968 bequeathing the entire Survey No.25/8P which is the begaar inam in favour of the plaintiff and also assigned begaar duty to the plaintiff and the plaintiff also continued to perform the said duty.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Ningappa died in the year 1970 and he has succeeded to the said Ningappa. The plaintiff and his adoptive mother Kariyawwa had been cultivating the said inam land by paying kandayam etc., to the Government. The said land subsequently on 29.01.1980 was re-granted jointly in the name of the plaintif