To establish a custom of illatom affiliation, two essential requisites are to be established viz. (1) such a person to be affiliated must marry the daughter of the other; and (2) there should be an agreement to give him a share) and both these conditions must be satisfied.

B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE common judgment and decree rendered in O. S. No. 86/77 (O. S. 57/77) and O. S. No. 5/78 (O. S. 101/77) dated 31-12-1980 by the learned Sub Judge (Sri B. Venkateswara Rao), Chodavaram, visakhapatnam district have lead to these two appeals. The two suits and appeals are between the same parties inter vivos involving common questions of fact and law. The arrayal of them in the capacity of plaintiff and defendants in the suit correspondingly make them parties in the appeal as appellant and respondents and vice versa. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 86 of 1977 is the appellant and the defendants therein are the respondents in a. S. No. 1013 of 1982. The plaintiffs in o. S. No. 5 of 1978 are the appellants and the defendant therein is the respondent in a. S. No. 3194 of 1982. So the style of parties as they occupied in the suits as plaintiff and defendants shall be repeated for reference in these appeals.

( 2 ) THE parties litigated over the subject matter of the suits described in plaint schedules A to E comprising movable immovable properties and cash. The suit o. S. No. 86 of 1977 is for partition and separate possession of 8 shares out of 20 equal shares in plaint A, B, C and Item No. 2 in e-schedule properties, for recovery of possession of D-schedule properties from the defendants 1 and 2, for mesne profits and such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. In O. S. No. 5 of 1978 the plaintiffs want to recover Rs. 7,907-60 from the defendant (plaintiff in the other suit) which is said to have been wrongly paid to him by the cooperative Central Bank, Chodavaram on 6-6-1974, for costs and such other reliefs. Both the suits were resisted by the respective defendants.

( 3 ) THE learned Sub Judge has succinctly and neatly recorded the admitted bacts and the controversies between the parties: One late Kota Somayajulu of arjunagiri has been the pivotal figure of the litigation. Defendant No. 2 is the widow, defendant No. 1 is the son and late annapumamma and defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of Somayajulu. The plaintiff is the sister s son of Somayajulu and also the husband of Annapurnamma the daughter of somayajulu. The plaintiff married her in the year 1944. Annapurnamma died on 22-9-72 at KG. hospital, Visakhapatnam and her dead body was cremated at Arjunagiri. Somayajulu died on 6-6-1972. The family of somayajulu is mainly an agricultural family with money-lending business and other businesses. At the time of marriage of annapumamma with the plaintiff, some of the gold ornaments as mentioned in plaint D- schedule were given to her. She used them till she died, Annapumamma died intestate and issueless. Somayajulu had deposited Rs. 29,000-00, his money, In Cooperative Central bank, Chodavaram. After his death, the plaintiff and his wife had laid Claim for the money. The Bank after enquiry, felt that the plaintiff and his wife were each entitled to 1/5th share and accordingly each of them including the surviving daughters of somayajulu got Rs. 5,814. These are the uncontroverted facts for both the sides. The plaintiff pleaded that he, his brothers, somayajulu and his brothers were living together as a composite family and acquired by their joint efforts a house and some lands at Arjunagiri. Somayajulu had acquired some properties 20 years back in a partition. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that in these parts (where the parties reside), illatom affiliation is prevailing in all agricultural families irrespective of the caste from ancient times. At the time of the marriage of the plaintiff with Annapoomamma, he was taken as an illatom son-in-law by Somayajulu with an understanding and promise to give him 1/4th share in all the properties then existing and other properties that may be acquired by the family in future. At the time of the marriage,the defendant No. 1 was an young boy of six years and Somayajulu had no assistance to carry on agricultural operations.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document