Judgment

DAS GUPTA J. : This appeal brought on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is against a decision of that Court reversing a decree granted by the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatnam, dismissing a suit for partition.

2. Of the three plaintiffs who brought the suit two claimed to be the reversioners of Boppanna Chandrappa, to whom we shall refer to as Chandrappa and the third a purchaser of the interest of some of the reversioners, viz., defendants 4, 5 and 7. According to the plaint the three plaintiffs were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while the 6th defendant was entitled as reversioner of Chandrappa to the remaining 1/6th share. The property was however in the actual possession of the three sons of Nagayya who were impleaded as the first three defendants.

3. In contesting the suit these defendants denied that these properties had ever belonged to Chandrappa and further that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 or the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 were his reversioner. The main defence however was that even if the properties did belong to Chandrappa, the defendant s father Nagayya became entitled to these a s Chandrappa s illatom son-in-law. The basis of this plea of illatom son-in-lawship was said to be that Chandrappa had brought Nagayya into his family under an arrangement that the latter would marry his wife s sister s daughter Mangamma and help him in cultivation and management of the properties, in consideration of which Nagayya would inherit the entire property after Chandrappa s death.

4. The trial Court held that all the suit properties except a small portion did belong to Chandrappa and the plaintiffs would be entitled to 5/6th share of Chandrappa s properties and the 6th defendant to the remaining 1/6th share, on the death of Chandrappa s widow Ramamma. He however accepted the defence case that Nagayya had become entitled to the property on Chandrappa s death as Chandrappa s illatom son-in-law and accordingly dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal the High Court held that the custom by which an illatom son-in-law inherited property could not be extended to a case where the marriage took place not with the daughter of the owner of the property but with some other relation of his. The High Court also rejected an alternative plea that appears to have been raised before it that Nagaya became entitled to the property on the basis of a contract between him and Chandrappa. In this view of the law, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit.

6. It is no longer disputed before us that the rights of an illatom son-in-law cannot be claimed by a person who under a promise from the owner of the property that he would inherit the property marries not the daughter but some other relation of the owner of the property. The alternative contention which was raised before the High Court has however been repeated before us. It has been urged that there was a good and valid contract between Chandrappa and Nagayya, that in consideration of Nagayya marrying Mangamma and looking after Chandrappa s property, Chandrappa would make him his heir and that the consequence of this contract was that Nagayya became Chandrappa s heir. The question here is not whether on Chandrappa s death Nagayya could have obtained specific performance of the alleged contract. For, assuming that there was a contract as alleged and that it was a valid contract, enforceable at law and also such of which specific performance could have been obtained by proper proceedings in courts, the appellants right would be to seek such specific performance. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that even though specific performance has not been sought or given the contract itself would have the effect of transferring interest in the property to Nagayya on Chandrappa s death.

7. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied on three decisions of High Courts in India and also a decision of the Privy Council. The