Judgment

KANIA, J. :- Leave granted. Counsel heard.

2. As we are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we propose to set out the few facts necessary for the appreciation of the arguments before us very briefly.

3. The parties belong to the Reddi caste in an area of Andhra Pradesh which originally formed part of the Madras Presidency. Appellant No. I is the illatom son-in-law of appellant No. 2. The appellants filed their respective declarations under See. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act"). In his declaration, appellant No. 2 claimed an increase in the ceiling unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant No. 1 as his illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority had a share in the properties of his father-in-law, appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 2 deposed in the inquiry held that appellant No. I was entitled to a half share in his properties as his illatom son-in-law. Both of them claimed that appellant No. I was entitled to the aforesaid share under an agreement (Exhibit Al). The Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur by its judgment dated May 31, 1977, rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the declarant, appellant No.2 held surplus holding to an extent of 0.4109 standard acres and directed him to surrender the excess land. Appellant No. I was declared as not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur which was dismissed on November 4,1977. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal made by the said Tribunal, the appellants filed a Civil Revn. Petn. No. 3974 of 1977 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court by a common judgment along with other connected matters on April 21, 1978.* This appeal by special leave is one of the appeals directed against the common judgment of the said High Court.

(*Or D/- 25-4-1978, reported in (1978) 2 APLJ (HC) 60 - ED.)

4. An illatom son-in-law is in a sense, a creature of custom. It is well settled by a series of decisions that a custom of illatom adoption prevails among the Reddi and Kamma castes in territories which earlier formed part of the then Madras Presidency. It is stated in Maynes Hindu Law and Usages, 13th Edition, Paragraph 242 in Chapter VII, as follows:

"A custom known as that of illatom adoption prevails among the Reddi and Kamma castes in the Madras Presidency. It consists in the affiliation of a son-in-law, in consideration of assistance in the management of the family property. No religious significance appears to attach to the act. Neither the execution of any document nor the performance of any ceremony is necessary. The incidents of an illatom adoption have now become crystallized into fixed rules of law by a long course of decisions. To constitute a person an illatom, a specific agreement is necessary.... After the death of the adopter he is entitled to the full rights of a son even as against natural sons subsequently born or a son subsequently adopted in the usual manner."

5. It has also been stated by Mayne that an illatom son-in-law has no right to claim partition with his father-in-law unless there is an express agreement or custom to that effect. An illatom son-in-law is not an adopted son in any sense. In N. R. Raghavanchariars Hindu Law, 8th Edition, in paragraph 176, it is stated that an illatom son-in-law loses no rights of inheritance in his natural family and the property he takes in the adoptive family is taken by his own relations to the exclusion of those of his adoptive father. The position, as set out in Mullas Hindu Law, 16th Edition is no different. Regarding the position of an illatom son-in-law it has been inter alia observed by Mulla at para 515 (page 534) as follows:

"He does not lose his right of inheritance in his natural family. Neither he nor his de