VENKATARAMIAH, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1966 on the file of the Civil Judge Bijapur, the plaintiffs therein have filed the above appeal and the 1st defendant therein has filed cross-objections. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. The parties to the suit are related to each other as follows : The propositus Irappa had one son by name Lakshmappa. Lakshmappa had two sons and a daughter by name Sangappa Hanumappa and Chennawwa (Defendant 5 ). It is stated that Hanumappa relinquished his interest in the suit properties on 3-5-1941. That on 7-9-1951 a partition took place between Lakshmappa and his son Sangappa At that partition the properties described in plaint schedule 'a five items in schedule 'b' and some moveables were allotted to the share of Sangappa and the properties described in schedule 'c' were allotted to Lakshmappa. On the same day a partition took place between Sangappa and his only surviving son Ramappa defendant 1. (his first son Irappa having died on 29-3-1938 ). Thereafter plaintiff 1 was taken in adoption by Lakshmibai, plaintiff 2, the widow of Irappa the first son of Sangappa to her husband. Sangappa died on 20-4-1865 leaving behind him his widow Ningawwa, defendant 4, his son defendant 1 and two daughters Neelawwa (defendant 2) and kasawa (defendant 3 ). Lakshmappa executed a will on 7-9-1951 bequeathing the properties which were allotted to his share (plaint 'c' schedule properties) in favour of his daughter Chennnawwa, defendant 5. Lakshmappa died on 8-1-1952. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the 2nd plaintiff is the adopted son of Irappa, the first son of Sangappa by virtue of adoption which took place on 16-5-1952, and that he was entitled to a share in all the properties described in the plaint Schedule A to D. It is further pleaded that the partition which took place between Lakshmappa and Sangappa, the partition which took place between Sangappa and Ramappa, defendant 1, and the will executed by Lakshmappa on 7-9-1951 were inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff 1 and he is entitled to claim partition in respect of those properties notwithstanding those transactions. It was alternatively pleaded that the two partitions and the will which came into existence on 7-9-1951 were collusive and sham transactions and therefore ineffective. ( 3 ) THE defendants denied the validity of the adoption of plaintiff 1 by plaintiff 2. They also pleaded that the partition deeds and the will which came into existence on 7-9-1951 were not sham and collusive transactions. With regard to two items of properties, namely, survey Nos. 83/2 and 91 described in Schedule 'b' of the plaint, it was contended that they were the self-acquisitions of the first defendant and were not therefore available for partition. The Court below while upholding the adoption of the 1st plaintiff by the 2nd plaintiff passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs for 6/20th share instead of 6/15th share claimed in. the plaint in the properties described in plaint schedules 'a' and 'b1 and at serial 1 and 7 in schedule 'd'. It upheld the plea cf the defendants that the partitions and the will dt. 7-9-1951 were true and, genuine and accordingly negatived the case of the plaintiffs with regard to properties described in plaint 'c' schedule. The Court below negatived the contention of the defendants that the lands bearing survey Nos. 83/2 and 91 which were acquired in 1963 and 1964 were the self acquisitions of the. first defendant. It therefore held that those two items were also available for partition. The Court below further ordered that the defendant should pay in all Rs. 1,300 by way of past mesne profits for six years prior to the date of suit to the plaintiffs and further directed an enquiry into the future mesne profits under Rule 12, Order 20 CPC. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below the plaintiffs have filed this appeal in so far as it related to the determination of the share of the plaintiffs in the properties and in so far as the decree of the Court bellow rejected the case of the 1st plaintiff in regard to the plaint 'c' schedule properties. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the court below the plaintiffs have filed this appeal in so far as it related to the determination of the share of the plaintiffs in the properties and in so far as the decree of the Court bellow rejected the case of the 1st plaintiff in regard to the plaint 'c' schedule properties. The first defendant has filed cross-objections challenging the finding of the Court below on the question of adoption of the first plaintiff by the 2nd plaintiff, the finding of the court below that items 83/2 and 91 of plaint 'b' schedule were divisible and the finding with regard to the liability of the defendants to pay mesne profits past and future. ( 4 ) WE shall first take up the appeal of the plaintiffs for consideration. The first ground relates to the genuineness and binding nature of the two partition deeds and the will which came into existence on 7-9-1951. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Court below that the three documents, viz. the partition deed between Lakshmappa and Sangappa (Ex. D27), the partition deed between Sangappa and his son Ramappa, defendant 1 (Ex. D26) and the will of Lakshmappa (Ex. D28) are not collusive documents, but genuine documents binding on the parties, has got to be affirmed. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs have not made out any case, at any rate, to reopen the partition which took place between Lakshmappa and Sangappa (Ex. D27 ). It therefore, follows that under the will, Ex. D28, toe 5th defendant chennawwa, the legatee thereunder, acquired title to the properties described in plaint 'c' schedule, which had been allotted in favour of lakshmappa under Ex. D27. We further hold that the properties described in plaint 'c' schedule are not available for partition and those properties have been rightly excluded by the Court below from the purview of the suit. ( 6 ) AT the conclusion of the hearing learned Counsel for both the parties appearing in this appeal, submitted that the allotment of 6|20th thare in the divisible properties to the plaintiffs made in the preliminary decree passed by the Court below may be confirmed. Hence, we do not propose to go into the question whether the plaintiffs have been allotted a proper share or not in this appeal. Hence, we do not propose to go into the question whether the plaintiffs have been allotted a proper share or not in this appeal. ( 7 ) NO other point arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The appeal therefore, has to fail. ( 8 ) WE shall now advert to the cross-objections filed by Deft. 1. We hereby record the submission rightly made by the Counsel for defendant 1, in view of the overwhelming evidence available in the case, that he would not question the finding recorded by the Court below on the validity of the adoption of plaintiff 1 by plaintiff 2. Hence, nothing more need be stated about that question while dealing with the cross-objections. ( 9 ) THE second question raised in the cross-objections relates to the two lands bearing S. Nos. 83/2 and 91 described in the plaint B schedule. They were acquired in the name of defendant 1 on 1-7-1963 and 17-4-64 respectively after the partition between Sangappa and defendant 1 was effected under Ex. P27. Although it was not disputed that these two items of property were acquired with the aid of the other family properties it was argued by Sri K. A. Swamy that because these two items had been acquired after the partition between Sangappa and defendant 1 took place and long after the death of the adoptive father of plaintiff 1, they should be excluded from the scope of the partition suit. In other words, he contended that they should be treated as separate properties of defendant 1. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was placed by Sri K. A. Swamy, in support of the above contention, on the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivasa krishnarao Kongo v. Naayan Devji Kango AIR. 1954 9c. 379. , in which it was held that the doctrine of relation back as expounded by the Privy Council in Anant bhikappa v. Shankar Ramachandra AIR. 1943 PC. 196. extended only to the properties of the family and not to the properties inherited by any of the members of the coparcenary from collaterals prior to the date of adoption. 379. , in which it was held that the doctrine of relation back as expounded by the Privy Council in Anant bhikappa v. Shankar Ramachandra AIR. 1943 PC. 196. extended only to the properties of the family and not to the properties inherited by any of the members of the coparcenary from collaterals prior to the date of adoption. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that when an adoption is made by a widow of either a coparcener or a separated member, then the right of the adopted son to claim properties as on the date of the death of the adoptive father by reason of the theory of relation back is subject to the limitation that alienations made prior to the date of adoption are binding on him, if they were for purposes binding on the estate, and that the relation back to the right of an adopted son is only 'quoad' the estate of the adoptive father. The Supreme Court was not concerned in the above case whether the properties acquired with the aid of the properties which formed the joint family estate at the time of the death of the adoptive father, could be a subject matter of partition or not. On this question, we have a decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Krishtappa Venkappa gadad v. Gopal Shivaji Ramachandra Kulkarni AIR. 1957 Bom. 214, FB. , in which it is observed as follows : with regard to accretions, it is clear that the adopted son must have his share in the accretions to the property which remained with the dividing coparceners. He would also have his share in any income earned with the aid of the property which was originally joint family property. ( 11 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the observations of the FB of the HC of Bom. for it would be illogical to hold that when the property which belonged to the joint family at the time of the death of the adoptive father is available for partition, any property acquired with the aid of such property would not be available for partition. It is reasonable to hold that any property acquired by the other coparceners with the aid of the joint family property which was subject to partition is also impressed with the character of joint family property. It is reasonable to hold that any property acquired by the other coparceners with the aid of the joint family property which was subject to partition is also impressed with the character of joint family property. Any partition that may have taken place between the members of the coparcenary prior to the adoption would have no effect on the above question, and hence, an acquisition made by any of the coparceners who were parties to the partition, with the aid of the family property cannot be considered as separate property in their hands. Such acquisition also has to be treated as joint family property. ( 12 ) THE alove view can bo justified in another way. It is settled law that when the property of a joint family comes into the hands of a sole surviving coparcener, it continues to retain the character of joint family property although there is no other coparcener in the family and the right of alienation of the sole surviving coparcener may be uninhibited and any accretion thereto or acquisition made by the sole surviving coparcener with its aid would also be joint family property. When a male child is bom to him, such child would become entitled to all the rights of a coparcener in the joint family property, including accretions thereto or property acquired with its aid. In a case where there has been a partition prior to the adoption and the properties of the family have passed on into the hands of divided members of the family, the position cannot be different in so far as the above question is concerned. We, therefore, reject the contention of Sri K. A. Swamy that the lands bearing S. Nos. 83/2 and 91 should be treated as separate properties belonging to defendant 1. ( 13 ) THE last question to be considered relates to that part of the decree passed by the Court below which directs defendant 1 to pay past mesne profits to the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. Although it is averred in the course of the plaint that there had been a demand for a partition made by the plaintiffs a few months prior to the date of the suit, no evidence has been placed in support of it. The Court below was, therefore, not right in directing defendant 1 to pay the past mesne profits of rs. 1,300. The Court below was, therefore, not right in directing defendant 1 to pay the past mesne profits of rs. 1,300. In so far as the direction with regard to payment of future mesne profits made by the Court below, it has to be observed that the proper direction that should have been given in this case was one under sub-rule (l) of Rule 18 of Order 20, CPC and not under Rule 12 of Order 20, civil Procedure Code. ( 14 ) THE cross-objections, therefore, succeed in part. The decree for past and future mesne profits passed by the Court below is set aside. A direction is however issued, for holding an enquiry ujsub-rule (l) of R. 18 of Or. 20, cpc. for ascertainment of the profits payable to the plaintiffs from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of the share of the plaintiffs. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. The crossobjections are allowed in part as indicated above. In other respects, the decree of the Court below is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs both in the appeal and the cross-objections. --- *** ---