The custom of Illatom son-in-law preserves inheritance rights, distinguishing from adopted son status, thus impacting entitlement to ancestral properties.

JUDGMENT :

K. Sujana, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.414 of 2001 on the file of IV- Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. The suit is filed for preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to put them in exclusive possession of the same. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff No.1 and defendantNos.1 to 3 are the sons of late Chandra Reddy. Late Chandra Reddy and his brother Chukka Reddy constituted a joint family and they owned agricultural lands in Nanakramguda village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. The properties included lands in survey numbers 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 148. During their lifetime, they partitioned their properties equally. Chandra Reddy's half-share was assigned with sub-division numbers 19/1, 20/1, 21/1, 23/1, 24/1, 27/1, 28/1, and 148/1. Chukka Reddy's half-share was assigned with sub-division numbers 19/2, 20/2, 21/2, 24/2, 27/2, 28/2, and 148/2. After the death of Chandra Reddy, his children and their mother Nagamma succeeded to his estate. Upon Nagamma's death, the 1stPlaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 became the sole legal heirs, each having a 1/4thshare in the schedule property. Further one Dharmagari Ramaiah @ Ramreddy had daughters and no sons as such, he performed the marriage of his elder daughter – Mallamma with the 1st plaintiff and made himIllatomson-in- law and he managed the properties of Dharmagari Ramaiah. However, defendants 1 to 3 allegedly colluded with each other and disposed of portion of lands in Survey No. 27/1 and 28/1 to third parties without informing the 1stplaintiff. The defendant No.4 published notice in Eenadu cautioning the general public that he intended to purchase the rest of the lands from defendants 1 to 3. As such, the 1stplaintiff issued a notice on 29.06.2000 to defendant No.4 claiming interest in the schedule property, and despite assurances from the Managing Director of defendant No.4 and defendants 1 to 3 that they would not conclude any contract without the consent of 1st plaintiff and his sons plaintiffs 2 to 6, they attempted to create sale deeds excluding the plaintiffs. The 1stplaintiff then got issued legal notice on 19.02.2001 calling upon defendants 1 to 3 to effect partition of the schedule properties but no reply was given by defendantNos.1 to 3 and filed caveat before the Junior Civil Judge, West and South Rangareddy District and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy with false allegations alleging that the 1stplaintiff was taken in adoption as a son but notIllatomson-in-law by Dharmagari Ramaiah, as such, his co- parcenery right has extinguished. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements, denying the plaintiffs claim and stated that the suit is not maintainable under law. They contended that the plaintiff had admitted in O.S.No.372 of 1994 that he was the adopted son of late Dharmagari Ramaiah, having been given in adoption to him in the year 1946 as per the customs. Following this adoption, the plaintiff's surname was changed to Dharmagari, and he inherited properties from his adoptive family, including those of his adoptive father's brother-Chandra Reddy who had no issues. The defendants claimed that the 1st plaintiff adoption predated his marriage to Ram Reddy's daughter, Mallamma, and therefore, he ceased to be a member of the defendants' family and is not entitled to co-parcen