JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. The propositus was one Channappa. He did not have sons. Hence he adopted one Shivappa. Shivappa was married to Ningavva - 1st plaintiff. Through their marriage, they have eight children. Plaintiffs No.2 to 8 and defendant No. 1 are their children. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No. 1. Since a share of the plaintiffs was denied, the instant suit was filed for Partition and separate possession. 2. On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.3. They contended that Shivappa was the adopted son of Channappa, who has inherited the properties. Therefore, the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Shivappa. During his lifetime, Shivappa had executed a Will dated 13.05.2002 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, namely, the children of defendant No. 1. In the said Will, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each was deposited in the names of his unmarried daughters Savakka and Manjavva namely plaintiffs No.7 and 8. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. 3. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral and joint Hindu family properties and they and defendant No. 1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same? ii. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the Will executed by Shivappa in favour of defendants 2 and 3 pertaining to suit properties is illegal, void and is not binding on their share? iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? iv. What order or decree ? Additional Issues Dated 9.8.2011 i. Whether the defendants prove that by virtue of the Will dated 13.5.2002 said to have been executed by deceased Shivappa the defendants 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of suit properties as contended in para 3 of the mitten statement? ii. Whether the defendants further prove that the deceased Shivappa during his life time has deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his wife the plaintiff No. 1 and a sum of Rs. ii. Whether the defendants further prove that the deceased Shivappa during his life time has deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his wife the plaintiff No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in the name of plaintiffs 7 and 8 in Mallaprabba Grameen Bank towards their maintenance as contended in further para 3 of their written statement ? 4. Plaintiff No.8 examined herself as PW1 and got marked 4 documents at Exhibits PI to P4. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1, examined 4 witnesses as DWs. 2 to 5 and got marked 13 documents. Issues 1 to 3 were held in the affirmative and additional issues 1 and 2 were held in the negative. 5. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 8 and defendants No.1 to 3 were together entitled to claim 1/9th share of the suit schedule properties Aggrieved be the same, defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed this appeal. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 6. Smt. Hemalekha K.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the impugned judgment and decree is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. That the trial Court failed to consider the validity of the Will. That the trial Court has wrongly held that the Will has not been proved. Once the property has been received by Shivappa, who was the adopted son, the said property becomes the self-acquired property of Shivappa. Therefore, even if the trial Court's finding that the properties are ancestral properties is held to be valid, Shivappa is entitled to bequeath his share of suit schedule properties. His share in the suit schedule properties amounts to ?rd of the share. The other ?rd will go to his wife Ningavva who is still alive and their son Channabasappa. Therefore, the division of shares of 1/9th is erroneous. 7. On the other hand, Sri. Sachin S. Magadum, learned counsel for the respondents defends the same. He contends that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. The allotment of shares is just and proper. That the defendants No. 1 to 3 have failed to prove the Will and therefore cannot seek any benefit from it. 8. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 9. He contends that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. The allotment of shares is just and proper. That the defendants No. 1 to 3 have failed to prove the Will and therefore cannot seek any benefit from it. 8. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 9. The following points arise for our consideration in this appeal: i Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is justified in holding that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties? ii. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is justified in holding that Will at Ex.D12 is executed under suspicious circumstances? iii. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is justified in allotting 1/9th share to all the parties? 10. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the entire properties are self-acquired properties. That originally the properties were owned by the propositus Channappa. Since he did not have any children, he adopted Shivappa. The contention is that once the adopted son receives the property, the same becomes his self-acquired property. Reliance is therefore placed on Section 12 proviso (c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ('the Act', for short) in support of the contention. 11. The very question came up for consideration before this Court. By the order dated 17.01.2017 passed in RFA No.4028 of 2013, the very question of law with regard to applicability of Section 12 proviso (c) of the Act to the nature of properties was discussed therein. The Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that inheritance does not change the nature of the properties. That the adopted son becomes the natural son of the family from the date of his adoption. That if the properties are ancestral, they continue to be ancestral even in the hands of the adopted son and thereafter. If they are self-acquired properties, they continue to be self-acquired in the hands of the adopted son and thereafter. Hence, we are of the view that it is not necessary for us to go into further discussion on this issue. Following the judgment of this Court passed on 17.01.2017 in RFA No.4028 of 2013, the contention of the defendants that the properties that have fallen to the share of Shivappa changes its nature into one of self-acquired properties, therefore cannot be accepted. Following the judgment of this Court passed on 17.01.2017 in RFA No.4028 of 2013, the contention of the defendants that the properties that have fallen to the share of Shivappa changes its nature into one of self-acquired properties, therefore cannot be accepted. Since the contention is rejected, the entire suit schedule properties being joint family properties, has been rightly held by the trial Court. Hence the first issue is accordingly answered by holding that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. 12. The second point for consideration is whether the defendants were able to prove the Will at Exhibit D12. The trial Court considered the various suspicious circumstances involved in the execution of the Will. The Will is executed by Shivappa in favour of the sons of Channabasappa. The material on record would indicate that Channabasappa had played an active role in preparation of the Will by procuring the stamp papers etc. However, Channabasappa had not entered the witness box in support of the Will. Therefore, this would amount to a suspicious circumstances. The other suspicions circumstance is that Shivappa did not provide any property to his only son namely, the father of defendants No.2 and 3. This too amounts to a suspicious circumstance while executing the Will. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in holding that the defendants have failed to prove Exhibit D12. 13. The third point for consideration is with regard to the allotment of shares to the respective parties. The trial Court by following the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2010 ICAR 1484 in the case of Pushpalatha N.V. v. V. Padma and Others, allotted equal share to the mother and to the children. The judgment relied on by the trial Court was reversed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2016 SC 769 in the case of Prakash and Others v. Phulavati and others. Hence we have to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while awarding shares. 14. On a notional partition, propositus Shivappa, Shivappa's wife Ningavva and their son Channabasappa will each receive ?rd share. The share of Shivappa on his death would again be divided between the remaining Legal Representatives namely his wife and eight children. Therefore, in effect plaintiff No. 1 - Ningavva and defendant No. 1 - Channabasappa would receive ?"d share each. 14. On a notional partition, propositus Shivappa, Shivappa's wife Ningavva and their son Channabasappa will each receive ?rd share. The share of Shivappa on his death would again be divided between the remaining Legal Representatives namely his wife and eight children. Therefore, in effect plaintiff No. 1 - Ningavva and defendant No. 1 - Channabasappa would receive ?"d share each. Plaintiffs 1 to 8 and the defendant No.1 will receive 1/27 share. Hence, plaintiff No.1 - Ningavva and defendant No.1 - Channabasappa will receive ? + 1/27 share each and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 will receive 1/27 share. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil judge, Hubli in O.S.No.159 of 2009 is modified. Plaintiff No. 1 - Ningavva and defendant No. 1 - Channabasappa would receive ?rd share each. Plaintiffs 1 to 8 and the defendant No. 1 will receive 1/27 share. Hence, plaintiff No.1 - Ningavva and defendant No.1 - Channabasappa will each receive 1/3 + 1/27 share and plaintiffs No.2 to 8 will each receive 1/27 share. Decree to be accordingly drawn No costs.