JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by first defendant in O.S.No.37/1981 on the file of the Munsiff, Ankola, challenging the divergent finding recorded by the First Appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff has sought for partition and separate possession of 6/10th share in the suit schedule properties and sought a declaration that the defendant No.1 is not the adopted son of the deceased Vasu. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and consequently, granted the relief of declaration as well as the partition.

3. This appeal was admitted on 20/3/2014, to answer the following substantial question of law:

"i) Whether the first appellate Court has committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence in order to come to the conclusion that the adoption of defendant No.1 is not proved in accordance with law?

ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse and illegal for not considering the material evidence placed on record?"

4. Certain facts necessary to answer the aforementioned substantial questions of law can be summerised as under:-

5. The genealogy of the parties is under:

6. One Venkanna was the propositus. He had two sons Hammanna and Vasu. The elder s