JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.--The Appellant was the Plaintiff and Respondents were the Defendants in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the trial Court. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 35 of 1982 for declaration that he is the owner of 'A' schedule properties and for delivery of possession or in the alternative to declare that he is entitled to 1/4th share in 'B' schedule properties and for delivery of possession. According to the Plaintiff, the properties were self-acquired properties of his father. He relied upon a Will dated 26.4.1980. It is alleged that after the death of the father, the Defendants did not allow him to take possession of 'A' schedule property and hence the suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the Defendants filing written statement disputing the legality and validity of the Will relied upon by the Plaintiff and they denied right of the Plaintiff in executing the Will and prayed for dismissal of the original suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence and produced documents in support of their respective case. Upon consideration of the same, the trial Court by its judgment dated 11.3.1985 decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiff is the owner of 'A' schedule properties and entitled for possession of the same. The appeal filed by the first Defendant in Regular Appeal No. 69 of 1989 was allowed by the first appellate Court by its judgment dated 7.4.1998, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted the alternative prayer holding that Plaintiff is entitled to 10/45th share in 'B' Schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law.- Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit properties were the joint family properties when admittedly an order of regrant has been made in the individual name of deceased Yallaiah?> 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and the pleadings and evidence on record for consideration of the rival legal submissions made on behalf of the parties and answered the substantial question of law assigning the following reasons. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and the pleadings and evidence on record for consideration of the rival legal submissions made on behalf of the parties and answered the substantial question of law assigning the following reasons. 5. The Plaintiff's claim is on the basis of the Will at Ex.P1 dated 26.4.1980 executed by his father Yallaiah @ Doddaiah under which Plaintiff was given 'A' schedule properties together with a loan of Rs.16,000/-. The execution of the said Will in favour of the Plaintiff is neither denied nor disputed by the Defendants. However, the said Will had been cancelled by a deed dated 30.12.1980 which was marked as Ex.D1. The trial Court considered this aspect of the case while dealing with the Issue No. 2 framed by the trial Court and held that the cancellation of the Will was not proved. Before considering this aspect of the case, the first appellate Court considered whether late Yallaiah @ Doddaiah had right to bequeath the suit properties in favour of the Plaintiff, which are Inam lands. It was found that the suit properties had been regranted in his favour by an order dated 2.7.1979 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Ex.P-8 under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Inam Abolition Act of 1961 (in short KVOA Act). Thereafter, the first appellate Court considered the decisions of this Court reported in 1983 (1) Kar LJ 482 and Shivappa Fakirappa Shetsanadi Vs. Kannappa Mallappa Shetsanadi, ILR (1987) KAR 3155 and held that since the properties are joint family properties, the Will Ex.P-1 did not confer any title on the Plaintiff as late Yellaiah @ Doddaiah had no right to bequeath the suit properties in favour of the Plaintiff. Rightly the first appellate Court held so on the said relevant point and the same is based upon proper interpretation of the provisions of the KVOA Act, law and evidence on record. The trial Court has not adverted to the above said aspects of the case of the Defendants while recording its findings on the relevant contentious issue. That being the position, the cancellation of the Will is immaterial. 6. The contention of Mr. The trial Court has not adverted to the above said aspects of the case of the Defendants while recording its findings on the relevant contentious issue. That being the position, the cancellation of the Will is immaterial. 6. The contention of Mr. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court that 'B' schedule properties are joint family properties is contrary to the admission made by the Defendants in their written statement filed in the original suit, cannot be accepted. At paragraph 19 of its judgment, the first appellate Court has adverted to this aspect of the case and held that merely because the Defendants have admitted that all 'B' schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of late Yallaiah, that is not a ground to hold that they are not joint family properties. The first appellate Court has considered the documents Exs. P5 to P8 and held that the inam lands had been regranted in the name of Late Yellaiah and hence they have to be treated as joint family properties. The conclusion of the first appellate Court is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the two decisions referred to above after interpretation of the provisions of the KVOA Act. 7. For the reasons stated above, the substantial question of law framed in this case is answered in the affirmative and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court does not warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit. 8. The Appeal stands dismissed.