This appeal suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 11.04.2000, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, passed in O.S.No.215 of 1989.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, and of Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Be it noted that the second respondent though was served with notice did not enter appearance.

3. I have perused the material record.

4. In this appeal suit, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arraigned in the suit.

5. Be it noted that during the pendency of the suit, the third defendant, Gudipudi Janakamma, died and defendants 1 and 2 are declared as the legal representatives/legal heirs of the deceased 3rd defendant vide orders on memo, dated 04.02.1991. The deceased 3rd defendant is not shown in the array of parties in the appeal suit. The 5th defendant i.e., the 4th respondent herein is impleaded during the pendency of the suit as per orders, dated 13.06.1997, passed in I.A.No.260 of 1997. Thus, the respondents in the appeal suit are defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5.

6. Since this is a first appeal suit and as this Court is the last Court of fact, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties.

7. Plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:

The 3rd defendant is the wife of late Gudipudi Ramaiah, resident of Kothur Village; defendants 1 and 2 are their daughters; they had no male issues. The 4th defendant is the married daughter of the 1st defendant. Gudipudi Ramaiah died, on 26.12.1986, at Kothur Village. The plaintiff is the 2nd son-in-law of late Ramaiah as the second defendant was given in marriage to him. As Ramaiah had no male issues, the plaintiff, who is the 2nd son-in-law, was brought more than 30 years ago as an illatom son-in-law as is customary in kamma community. At the time of getting the plaintiff as illatom son-in-law from his native village Lingapalem of Sathupalli Taluq, Gudipudi Ramaiah had agreed to give half of his property to the plaintiff. Having accepted the same and after the marriage of the plaintiff with the second defendant, the plaintiff came down and settled at the house of Ramaiah and had assumed the management of the property and developed the same and served Ramaiah and his wife late Janakamma (deceased 3rd defendant). The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, who is his wife, and her father Gudipudi Ramaiah lived together under one roof at Kothur Village, H/o Ammapalem Village. In the last days of Ramaiah, the plaintiff and his wife, the second defendant, served him; and, on his death, the plaintiff, who is his illatom son-in-law, performed the obsequies. The plaintiff and late Ramaiah jointly held and possessed the lands and house i.e., plaint schedule property with equal rights of ownership. Even during the course of Land Ceiling Proceedings, late Ramaiah gave a statement confirming the fact of the plaintiff having been brought as illatom son-in- law and the further fact of the plaintiff having half share in the lands and other properties of late Ramaiah. Thus, the plaintiff and Ramaiah lived together for a period of more than 30 years jointly with equal rights of ownership in the plaint schedule property. Even as on the date of the institution of the suit, i.e., 13.10.1988, the plaintiff is in possession and management of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a half share in the plaint schedule property. The first defendant and second defendant, who are daughters, and the third defendant, who is the wife of late Ramaiah, are entitled to the remaining half share in the plaint schedule property. Each of them is entitled to 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiff was brought as an illato