A contract by itself would not confer title on the promisee.

CHANDRA REDDY, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masuliptam dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The plaintiffs, claiming to be entitled in reversion to the properties of one Boppanna Chandrappa whose aunts grand-sons they are, have brought the present suit. The facts of this case are simple and are not in dispute.

3. One Boppana Chandrappa died in December 1894, leaving him surviving his widow Ramamma. He left behind him bulk of properties involved in the suit. During his life-time he brought up one Mangamma his wifes sisters daughter and married her to his sisters son one Nagayya, the father of defendants 1 and 2. This Nagayya was living ever since the marriage with Chandrappa and was assisting him in management of the latters properties. On the death of Chandrappa, the widow made an application to the revenue authorities for the mutation of the properties and this was effected under Ex. B-2.

Ever since, Nagayya was in possession and enjoyment of the properties and on his death, these properties devolved on his two sons defendants 1 and 2. Ramamma died on 22-1-1944. Sometime later, the plaintiffs claimed unsuccessfully these properties from defendants 1 and 2 as reversioners to Chandrappa and this obliged the plaintiffs to file the suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 4 to 8 are the grandsons of Chandrappas fathers brother. Defendant 8, having become a Christian before the succession opened, lost his share in the reversion, nor does he claim now any interest in it. Plaintiff 3 is a transferee from defendants 4 to 7. 4. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that Chandrappa took Nagayya the father of defendants 1 and 2 in Illatom adoption under an arrangement that Nagayya should marry Chandrappas wifes sisters daughter and help him in cultivation and management of his properties and inherit his entire property after his death. The other pleas need not be referred to here, as the controversy in this appeal centres round the question about the validity of the adoption and the right of the defendant to retain the property in suit.

5. The trial court found that plaintiffs are the reversioners to Chandrappa, but they are not entitled to succeed in the suit as Nagayya the father of defendants 1 and 2 was the Illatom son-in-law of Chandrappa and was therefore entitled to the whole inheritance.

6. The finding of the Judge as regards the claim of the plaintiffs to be reversioners is not challenged before us. The only point debated before us is whether Nagayya could be regarded as the illatom son-in-law of Chandrappa, and even otherwise his title the properties could be upheld on the ground of an oral agreement between Chandrappa and Nagappa whereby in consideration of Nagayya marrying Chandrappas foster-daughter and living with him Chandrappa covenanted that his properties should be inherited by Nagayya.

7. In support of this appeal, it is argued by the learned Advocate-General that the view of the Subordinate Judge that Nagayya was the illatom son-in-law of Chandrappa is erroneous. According to him, the essential requisite of an illatom adoption is the marriage of the adopters daughter to the individual and a mere agreement to give a share to the boy in consideration of the latter marrying a girl selected by the adopter would not confer the status of illatom Son-in-law. We feel that effect should be given to this argument.

8. The custom of affiliating a son-in-law and giving him a share, which is called illatom adoption, has been in vogue in certain communities of this stage. This institution is purely a creature of custom and judicial recognition has been given to it. The two essential conditions of this adoption are that the adoptee must marry the daughter of the adopter and there should be an agreement to give him a share though it is not necessary that the marriage should take place before he is admitted into the family.

Either of the two by itself will not be su