In companytesting the suit these defendants denied that these properties had ever belonged to Chandrappa and further that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 or the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 were his reversioners.
The facts there were that the defendants father who was selected by Musalireddi, in pursuance of a special custom, as a son in law who should take his property as if he was a son entered into possession of the property on Musalireddis death.
lie then associated with himself the plaintiff in the management of his property on promise of a share.
The plaintiff companytinued thus for many years, aiding in the management and improvement of the property, until a short time before the suit was brought, the first defendant turned the plaintiff out of doors and refused to give him the promised share.
In support of this companytention the learned Counsel relied on three decisions of High Courts in India and also a decision of the Privy Council.
The companytention on behalf of the appellant is that even though specific performance has number been sought or given the companytract itself would have the effect of transferring interest in the property to Nagayya on Chandrappas death.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 29, 1956, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No.
It is numberlonger disputed before us that the rights of an illatom son in law cannot be claimed by a person who under a promise from the owner of the property that he would inherit the property marries number the daughter but some other relation of the owner of the property.
Manavala Chowdhry and B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellants.
The High Court of Madras held that the agreement by the first defendants father was to the effect that the plaintiff was being admitted to the rights of a company sharer and further, as there was a companyplete adoption or ratification of the fathers companytract by the first defendant he ought to be held to it and the plaintiff was therefore a companysharer in the property.
The main defence however was that even if the properties did belong to Chandrappa, the defendants father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappas illatom son in law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The alternative companytention which was raised before the High Court has however been repeated before us, It has been urged that there was a good and valid companytract between Chandrappa and Nagayya, that in companysideration of Nagayya marrying Mangamma and looking after Chandrappas property, Chandrappa would make him his heir and that the companysequence of this companytract was that Nagayya became Chandrappas heir.
The basis of this plea of illatom son in lawship was said to be that Chandrappa had brought Nagayya into his family under an arrangement that the latter would marry his wifes sisters daughter Mangamma and help him in cultivation and management of the properties, in companysideration of which Nagayya would inherit the entire property after Chandrappas death.
defendants 4, 5 and 7.
According to the plaint the three plaintiffs were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of Chandrappa to the remaining 1/6th share.
The property was however in the actual possession of the three sons of Nagayya who were impleaded as the first three defendants.
Of the three plaintiffs who brought the suit, two claimed to be the reversioners of Boppanna Chandrappa, to whom we shall refer to as Chandrappa, and the third a purchaser of the interest of some of the reversioners, viz.,
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J. This appeal brought on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is against a decision of that Court reversing a decree granted by the Subordinate judge, Masulipatnam, dismissing a suit for partition.
182 of 1950.
331 of 1961.
Narasiah Chowdhry and R. Gopalakrishnan, for Respondents Nos.
May 10.
1, 2 and 8.
