PEECHU RAMAIAH Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 21 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed a declaration under section 8 of the Act showing the members of his family to be himself his daughter, daughter's husband and their children and also the wife of a daughter's son. In the declaration he has shown an extent of A53- 30 C of land which was computed at 1.2283 standard holdings. According to the case of the petitioner he has only one daughter. At the age of 10 years he brought Venkaiah, his daughter's husband into his family with a view to give his daughter in marriage to him and treated him as his illatom son-in-law and he has a half share in his lands. Therefore himself and his son-in-law each is entitled 10 a standard holding in which case there will not be any surplus as the land they hold is less than two standard holdings. Both the Land Reforms Tribunal, and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal found that the son-in-law of the petitioner, with his wife, and children, is living with the petitioner. On the ground that there is no specific agreement provided to treat the son-in-law as the illatom son-in-law both the Tribunals refused lo accept the case of the petitioner that his son-in-law is an illatom son in law having a half share in his property and accordingly treated the entire extent of land as belonging to the petitioner and declared 0.2383 standard holding as excess.

(2.) A custom known as that of illatom adoption prevails among the Reddi and Kamma Castes. The illatom adoption consists the affiliation of a son-in-law in consideration of assistance in the management of the family property. No religions significance is attached to the Act. Neither the execution of any document nor the performance of any ceremony is necessary. But to constitute a person as illatom son-in-law, a specific agreement is necessary. It need not be by a document. After the death of the adopter he is entitled to the full rights of a son. But the affiliation of a son - in-law does not deprive the man who takes him in adoption of the right to alienate his property intervivos or even to devise it by will. The illatom son-in-law has no right to claim partition with his father-in-law unless there is an express agreement or custom (See Mayne's treatise on Hindu Law and Usage 11th edition at page 280 .

(3.) That the fact the petitioner was treating his son-in-law as illatom son-in-law appears clear from the fact that in the declaration he has shown him as one of the members of his family. It does not appear that while filing the declaration or in the enquiry before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioner had any legal. assistance. If he had any legal assistance the declaration would not have been filed like that. Jf he was treating the entire property as his, he would have filed the declaration as a mere individual. The evidence given by the petitioner before the Land Reforms Tribunal also shows that he was merely giving answers to the questions put to him by the, Tribunal. All the facts necessary for the case were not brought out in his evidence. That must have been for the reason that in the evidence he was not led by any legal practitioner. Before the Deputy Tahsildar the petitioner has stated that he has given his daughter in marriage to Venkaiah, and kept him as his illatom son-in-law as he has no male issues. He has also stated that after his death his daughter will get his property and now he wants to give half share in his property to his son-in-law. From this statement the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal has inferred that there was no previous agreement and now only he wants to give a half share to his son-in-law. I do not think it is that which was meant by the statement made by the petitioner. That siatement was recorded only by the Dy. Tahsildar, who was not well convertent with the legal aspects of the case. From the statement made by the petitioner before the Dy. Tahsildar, the reasonable inference that can be drawn is that in his property his son-in law is entitled to a half share now a nd after his death his (the petitioner's) daughter would get his half share. The Dy. Tahsildar also recorded the statements of some more persons who also have stated that the son-in-law of the petitioner is his illatom son-in-law. Of course they did not say anything about the agreement to give a half share to him during the life time of the petitioner or thereafter. That must have been for the reason that they were not asked about it. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it is reasonable to infer that not only the son-in- law of the petitioner is his illatom son-in-law and the parties under-stood either expressly or impliedly that he will also be entitled to a half share not merely after the life time of the petitioner but also during his life time. If the son-in-law of the petitioner is entitled to a half share in his property even during his life time, each of them will be entitled to a standard holding in the lands of the petitioner in which case there will not be any surplus.