JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.88/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bilagi (for short, the 'Trial Court'). The said suit was for partition and separate possession. The genealogy of the parties is as under:

2. One Vyasappa Desai was the propositus. He had two sons Sangappa and Mallappa. Both Sangappa and Mallappa are dead. Mallappa died in the year 1917, this is a relevant year. Mallappa was survived by his wife Bhagirathi. In the year 1937 Bhagirathi took Gurusangappa in adoption. Said Gurusangappa is the plaintiff No.1. Gurusangappa had two wives Tangevva/plaintiff No.1A and Kamalavva/Plaintiff No.6. The children of second wife Kamalavva are plaintiffs No.2, 3, 4 and 5. Plaintiff No.1A is first wife and plaintiff No.1B is daughter. After the demise of Gurusangappa during the pendency of the suit, his first wife Tangevva/plaintiff No.1A and daughter Bhagirathi/plaintiff No.1B came on record. The suit is filed against Appasaheb who is the adopted son of Bhimrao and Bhimrao is the son of Sangappa. The suit for partition is filed on the premise that the property inherited by Mallappa from his father Vyasappa Desai would devolve upon Gurusangappa and through Gurusangappa, the plaintiffs inherited the properties and they are entitled to ½ share.

3. The defendants who represent the branch of Sangappa contested the suit. The defendants took the stand that the properties exclusively belonged to the defendants and plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties. It is also contented that Bhagirathi the wife of Mallappa had obtained a Court order for maintenance and to settle her claim based on order relating to maintenance, the lands in Sy.Nos.62 and 63 of Shiraguppi village, Bilagi Taluk were transferred in the name of Bhagirathi and as such the Gurusangappa cannot claim any share over the properties.

4. The Trial Court has framed issues based on the pleadings. The issue No.2 is relating to the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are joint family properties and this issue is answered against the plaintiffs holding that the properties are not joint family properties.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

7. Sri. S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Gurusangappa who was adopted by Bhagirathi under the registered adoption deed in the year 1937, would acquire all the properties held by Mallappa. To substantiate his contention, he would refer to the registered adoption deed which is marked at Ex.P16. In Ex.P16, it is recited that Gurusangappa would acquire all the property rights held by Mallappa. Referring to this registered adoption deed and also referring to the finding where the Trial Court has given, adoption is established. He would also contend that adoption is established and the adoption deed is recited that the adopted son will acquire all property rights of Mallappa who died in 1917. On this premise, it is contented that the plaintiffs have established their case, as Mallappa has inherited ½ share of Vyasappa Desai and as such prayed to pass decree for ½ share in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of the Trial court is erroneous and the Trial Court primarily placed reliance on the suit filed by the Gurusangappa against his mother Bhagirathi in respect of properties bearing Sy.Nos.62 and 63 of Shiraguppa village, Bilagi Taluk. It is urged that the dismissal of the above said suit will not come in the way of plaintiffs filing a suit for partition in respect of properties or