Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
VENKADARI SANKARAIAH - Appellant
Versus
State REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS), NANDYAL - Respondent
Decided On : 08-04-77
ILLATOM ADOPTION - CUSTOMARY LAW - ANDHRA PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1978 - SECTIONS 2, 4-A - ILLATOM ADOPTION AMONG VYSA COMMUNITY - VALIDITY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - HALF SHARE IN FATHER-IN-LAW'S PROPERTIES - INCLUSION IN HOLDING - EXCESS LAND DETERMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Venkadari Sankaraiah, claimed illatom adoption by his father-in-law, Geddam Veera Subbayya, in 1944, with a Kararunama (deed) granting him a half share in the properties. The Land Reforms Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal included the entire properties in the holding of the mother-in-law, Chinna Veeramma, as the custom of illatom adoption was not recognized among the Vysya community. The petitioner challenged this decision in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the factum of illatom adoption was true and undisputed, as evidenced by registered documents and oral testimony. However, the court held that the custom of illatom adoption was not recognized among the Vysya community, and therefore, the petitioner would not acquire any title to a half share in his father-in-law's properties based solely on the Kararunama.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was validly adopted as an illatom son-in-law by his father-in-law, despite the custom not being recognized among the Vysya community. 2. Whether the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of a half share in his father-in-law's properties could be considered adverse possession, entitling him to a share in the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's illatom adoption was true and undisputed, as evidenced by registered documents and oral testimony. However, the court also held that the custom of illatom adoption was not recognized among the Vysya community, and therefore, the petitioner would not acquire any title to a half share in his father-in-law's properties based solely on the Kararunama. 2. The court found that the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of a half share in his father-in-law's properties, asserting a right to the same under the Kararunama, for a significant period of time. The court held that this possession and enjoyment could be considered adverse possession, entitling the petitioner to a half share in the properties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the tribunals, and directed that only half of the lands be included in the share of Chinna Veeramma, while the other half be included in the holding of the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal for determining the ceiling area of the petitioner and the excess land, if any, in accordance with Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1978.
( 1 ) IN this revision petition filed under Section 21 of the Andhra pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1978, Sri challa Sitaramayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that venkadari Sankaraiah, the Petitioner herein was taken in illatom adoption by his father-in-law, Geddam Veera Subbayya, some time in 1944 and also executed a deed, Kararunama (Ex. B-4), dated 5-3-1944 in and by which he gave a half share to the petitioner in the properties possessed by him, and that ever since, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the half share, and the half share got by him under the said deed in the properties of his father-in-law should be included in his holding and that the tribunals erred in including the entire properties in the holding of his mother-in-law.
( 2 ) IN order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to notice a few relevant facts. The properties originally belonged to one Geddam Veera subbaiah. On 5-3-1944, he executed a Kararunama, Ex. B-4, in favour of venkadari Sankaraiah son of Lakshrnaiah (Petitioner herein ). In the deed it is recited that as he had no male issues and that he had only one daughter who had attained marriageable age and as he was not keeping good health and was unable to attend to the agricultural operations, he was desirous of getting his daughter married to a person whom he could take as an illatom son-in-law, so that he could attend to the management of his family affairs. He therefore agreed to take the petitioner, Sankaraiah, as an illatom son-in- law and that he should have absolute rights in a half share of the properties belonging to him and that the marriage should be performed within a few months thereafter. It is common ground that soon after the execution of the document Ex. B-4, the marriage of his daughter Veera Subbamma with the petitioner Sankaraiah was performed. Geddam Veera Subbayya died on 15-6-1944. It appears that the petitioner executed a registered relinquishment deed, Ex. B-2, on 27-10 1952 relinquishing his right in the joint family property of his natural family. The said deed was registered on 28-10-1952. Subsequently, on account of some disputes between the petitioner and his natural brothers, a registered partition deed Ex. B-6, dated 9-3-1966 was executed between the petitioner and his four brothers in and by which the petitioner was allotted some properties, which it is not necessary to refer for the purposes of this Case. The petitioner s wife, Veera Subbamma died on 1-4-1953. The petitioner has got two sons Chandramouli and Veera Subrahmanyam the petitioner subsequently purchased Ac. 4-20 cents on 5-6-1959 and another Ac. 0-30 cents on 18-4-1970.
( 3 ) BEFORE the Land Reforms Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as D. W. 1, the scribe of Ex. B-4 as D. W. 2 and the purobit as D. W. 3, and the mother-in-law of the petitioner and widow of Veera Subbaiah, as D. W. 4. D. W. 5 is his brother and D. W. 6 bis son, Chandramouli.
( 4 ) THE Land Reforms Tribunal held that the Kararunama (Ex. B-4) was not true and that it was not clear from Exs. B-2 and B-6 as to what properties, were given to the petitioner by his father-in-law. In that view, the tribunal held that the entire properties should be treated as the properties of geddam Chinna Veeramma, the widow of Veera Subbayya.
( 5 ) THE petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Land Reforms appellate Tribunal, Kurnool. The only point that was raised before the appellate Tribunal was whether the petitioner was the illatom son-in-law of geddam Veera Subbaiah and whether he had got half share in the properties of Veera Subbaiah. The Appellate Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and particularly the recitals in the registered relinguishment deed Ex. B-2, the registered will executed by his father lakshmaiah (Ex. B-30) and the registered partition-deed, Ex. B-6 executed between the petitioner and his brothe
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
