( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the declarants in C. C. Nos. 2266/s/75 and 2267/s/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Sangareddy is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal, Hyderabad in L. R. A. No. 534 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner, the major married daughter and the 3rd petitioner is stated to be the illatom son-in-law of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner claimed that he had taken the 3rd petitioner as the illatom son-in-law agreeing to give him a half share of his properties and giving the 2nd petitioner in marriage to him. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner filed a declaration and the 2nd and the 3rd petitioners filed separate declarations claiming that they have a half share in the properties standing in the name of the 1st petitioner. In support of their claim, they filed the illatom agreement dated 5-1-1960 marked as Ex. A. 1 and the voters list for the years 1970 and 1966 respectively marked as Exs. A2 and A. 3 in which the 3rd petitioner is shown as residing in the same house as that of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner in the village of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners examined 4 witnesses. P. W. I is the 1st petitioner. P. W. 2 is the 3rd petitioner. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are the attestors of the illatom agreement Ex. A. 1. The original Tribunal merely referred to the evidence of these 4 witnesses but without rejecting their evidence observed, it is not the factum of illatom which is to be considered. But the point forconsideration is whether the illatom son-in-law can be treated asthe holder of the land". The verification Officer appears to have reported that the declarant has no sons of his own and, therefore, took the husband of the 2nd declarant as illatom-son-in-law. He also reported that the 1st declarant executed a registered will dated 23-1-1960 stating that his illatom son-in-law would succeed to all the properties after his death and bequeathed survey No. 329 in favour of one Satyamma describing her as his wife.

( 3 ) THE Original Tribunal observing that the will would come into force only after the death of the testator computed the entire extent in the holding of the 1st petitioner.

( 4 ) THE 1st petitioner went in appeal and the Appellate Court held that sufficient opportunity was not given to the declarant and remanded the case. After remand, an objection petition was filed stating that the 3rd petitioner was taken as illatom son-in-law 16 years ago under an agreement to give him a half share in the property and that the land bearing survey No. 329 measuring Acs. 8. 49 cents was gifted to Satyamma absolutely about 15 years ago and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same, Satyamma is said to be concubine of the 1st petitioner. The Land Reforms Tribunal was of the view that "if really there was an illatom agreement, there was no necessity for the 1st declarant again to execute a will and get it registered. Ex. A. 1 appears to be after thought". In that view, it held that the entire property constituted the holding of the 1st petitioner alone. It accordingly found the holding of the 1st petitioner to be 1. 5442 standard holdings and as he was entitled only to one ceiling area, he was directed to surrender 0. 5442 standard holdings found in excess of the ceiling area. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners herein filed L. R. A. No. 534/1976. The Appellate Tribunal held that as per the recitals in the registered will, the 1st petitioner alone is the absolute owner and possessor of all the lands in his possession and it is only after his death, ownership rights would accrue to the legatees under the will. In that view, it dismissed the appeal.

( 5 ) IN this revision petition, Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the gift in favour of satyamma and that the illatom adoption and the illatom agreement to give a half share to the illatom son-in-law (the 3rd pe