of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the 18Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff Kailash Chand by virtue of inheritance. 27. On close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that there is no consideration in these judgments that the predecessor of the plaintiff Kailash Chand or the plaintiff himself were ever in possession of the suit property or had acquired the same in the manner as indicated in the judgment of M. Sivadasan(supra). 28. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained. 29. Resultantly, the judgment dated 2nd November, 2017 rendered by learned Division Bench and the judgment dated 21st July, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby reversed and set aside. 30. Consequently, the Revenue