In certain Hindu castes, the custom of illatom adoption (adopting a son-in-law) is valid even if the adoptive father has a natural born son, overriding the general prohibition under Mitakshara law.

Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (September 11, 1914) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur.

The question in the appeal was whether an adoption of an illatom son-in-law by a member of the Kamma caste who died in 1896, and a subsequent partition between the illatom (and his sons) and a natural born son (and his sons) were valid, having regard to the fact that at the time of the adoption the person so adopting was a member of a Hindu joint family and had a natural born son living.

Both Courts in India upheld the adoption.

The facts of the case and the basis of the decision in the High Court appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1919. Feb. 6, 7. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants. The evidence did not establish that there was a custom in the family enabling an illatom adoption. But if an illatom could in proper circumstances be taken, there was no proof that according to the custom the adoption could take place although the adoptive father (a) was a member of a joint family, and (b) had a natural son living at the time of the adoption. If by custom the illatom could be taken into a joint family, he was only entitled, so long as the family was undivided, to the acquired property in the absence of

Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 168 ( 1918- 1919) Nalluri Kristnamma V. Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya

39

evidence of custom to the contrary. In the unreported case referred to by the High Court it appears that when the illatom was taken there was an agreement made that he should receive a share. The onus of proving the custom was upon the respondents Ram Nundun Singh v. Janki Koer. ((19D2) L.

R. 29 I. A. 178.)

[The following cases in which a custom of adopting an illatom son-in-law has been recognized were referred to Tayumana Reddi v. Perumal Reddi (( 1862) 1 Madr. H. C. 51.); Challa Papi Reddi v. Challa Koti Reddi (( 1872) 7 Madr. H. C. 25.) ; Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi (( 1881) I. L. R. 4

M. 272.) ; Sivada Balarami Reddi v. Sivada Per a Reddi (( 1883) I. L. R. 6 M. 267.) ; Chenchamma

v. Subbaya (( 1885) I. L. R. 9 M. 114.) ; Ramakristna v. Subbakka (( 1889) I. L. R. 12 M. 442.) ; Malla Reddi v. Padmamrna (( 1893) I. L. R. 17 M. 48.) ; Narasimha Razu v. Veerabhadra Razu (( 1893) I. L. R, 17 M. 287.) ; Chinna Obayya v. Sura Reddi . (( 1897) I. L. R. 21 M. 226.)]

The respondents did not appear.

Feb .25. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN EDGE. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated September 11, 1914, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed a decree, dated December 19, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, which dismissed the suit. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was instituted on April 27, 1906, in the Court of the District Judge of Guntur, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge in which it was entered as Original Suit No. 1 of 1910. The plaintiffs in this suit (No. 1 of 1910) were Nalluri Krishnamma and his brother, Nalluri Adinarayudu. The original defendants in this suit were Kamepalli Ramalingam, who is now dead, and his sons, Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya and Kamepalli Seshu. Nalluri Lingayya, who is a natural brother of these plaintiffs, was added as a defendant to the suit on September 17, 1908, and is a nominal respondent to this appeal. He has not appeared, and it has been stated by counsel for the appellants that Nalluri Lingayya has been adopted, according to Hindu law, into another family, and is not interested in the suit or in this appeal.

In 1907 Kamepalli Ramalingam and his sons, Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya and Kamepalli Seshu, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Guntur against Nalluri Kristnamma, Nalluri Adinarayudu, and others, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, in which it was entered as Original Suit No. 2 of 1910. The two suits (No. 1 of 1910 and No. 2 of 1910) were tried together by the Subordinate Judge, and the evidence