(KRUTTIVENTI) SURAPPA Vs. (KURUTTIVENTI) SUNDARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by a reversioner for declaring that the alleged adoption of the defendant 2 is not true and valid and that his alienations are not binding on him beyond the lifetime of defendant 1. The last male owner Krishna Rao died on 20 April 1913. Defendant 1 is his widow. Before Krishna Rao's death he executed Ex 1 (dated 16 December 1912) described in the Court below as an affiliation deed. The Subordinate Judge held that Ex. 1 operates as an affiliation deed and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.

(2.) If the defendant 2 had not been validly adopted, he can succeed only on the footing that Ex. 1 was a gift or settlement or a will. The Subordinate Judge says: A Hindu can affiliate a son instead of actually adopting him, and give him his properties. It is no doubt true that unlike an adoption, mere affiliation will not create a right in the person affiliated to the properties of the person who affiliates. But in Ex. 1 we see words distinctly indicating the transfer of Krishna's properties to defendant 2.

(3.) We have, therefore, to see if it purports to be a transfer of the property inter vivos (by way of gift or settlement). The last sentence of the document (which is in Telugu) if properly translated runs thus: Further you, becoming a son to me, will be such an owner of all my properties as a son is.