Holding

An illatom son‑in‑law is not a major son for the purposes of Section 4A of the Ceiling Act and therefore cannot be used to increase the ceiling area of the father‑in‑law.

Summary

The appellants, members of the Reddi caste, filed land‑holding declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Appellant 2 claimed that his illatom son‑in‑law, Appellant 1, who had attained majority, was entitled to a half‑share in his property and therefore should be counted as a "major son" under Section 4A, increasing the ceiling area permissible to Appellant 2. The Land Reforms Tribunal and the High Court rejected this claim, holding that the illatom son‑in‑law’s share arose only on the death of the father‑in‑law and that the agreement presented was not admissible. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether an illatom son‑in‑law can be treated as a major son for the purposes of Section 4A. Relying on custom, statutory intent, and precedents, the Court held that an illatom son‑in‑law is a creature of custom whose rights differ from those of a natural or adopted son and cannot be deemed a major son under the Act. Consequently, the ceiling area of Appellant 2 was not increased and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an illatom son‑in‑law qualifies as a "major son" under Section 4A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
Whether the agreement granting a half‑share to the illatom son‑in‑law creates a present‑interest that would affect the ceiling calculation.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973s. 10, s. 3, s. 4, s. 4A, s. 5, s. 8, s. 9
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 (Act No. 10 of 1977)s. 4A

Subjects

illatom adoptionmajor sonSection 4Aland reformsagricultural holdings ceilingHindu customReddi casteinheritance rights

Judgment

A G. NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER
'
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

OCTOBER 22, 1991

B [M,H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEE\1, JJ.]

Hindu Law-II/atom adoption-Existence in the Reddi caste in
Andhra-Creature of custom--Judicial recognition of

C Hindu Law-l/laton~ adoption-II/atom son-in-law when. entitled to a
share in father-in··law's property-lllatom son-in-law and natural
son/adopted son-Distinction.

Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling 011 Agriculture Holdings) Act,
1973-;Section 4A-Legislativc intention-1/latom son-ill-law not be
D regarded as a major son-Reasons indicated.
The appellants, who belonged to the Reddi caste in an area of
Andhra Pradesh, which originally formed part of the Madras.Presidency
filed their respective declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh
Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
E
Appellant No. 2 in his declaration claimed an increase in the ceiling
unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant No. 1, as his
illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority, had a share in the
properties.

F In the inquiry held Appellant No. 2 deposed that appellant No. 1 was
entitled to a half share in bis properties as his illatom son-in-law.

Botb the appellants claimed that appellant No. 1 was entitled to a
share under ~n agreement.
G The Land Reforms Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants and
held that the declarant, appellant No. 2 held surplus holding and directed
him to surrender the excess land. Appellant No. 1 was declared as not
holding any land in excess of ceiling limit.

H The appellants preferred an .appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate
514
NARAYANAPPAv. GOVf.OFA.P. 515

Tribunal, which was dismissed. A
The appellants filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court,
which was also dismissed.

This appeal by !l'"J>ecial leave is one of the appeals directed against
the common judgment of the High Court. . B
The appellants contended that appellant No. 1 as an illato~ son-
-~ in-law of appellant No. 2, was entitled ll> a half share !n the property of
appellant No. 2; that an illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of
majority was in the same position as a major son and hence, the ceiling
area permitted to appellant No. 2 was liable to be increased by one ceiling
c
unit as appellant No. 1 did not hold any land independently nor in. any
manner specified under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
D
HELD: 1. The institution of illatom adoption, that is, affiliating a
son-in-law and giving him a share, is purelJ a creature of custom and
judicial recognition has been given to it. It prevails among the Reddi and
Kamma castes in territories which earlier formed part of the then Madras
Presidency. (518 G, 517 F] E
2. An illatom son-in-law becomes entitled to a share in the property
of his father-in-law as his heir, that is, on his death. (521 CJ

3. Although an illatom son-in-law has some rights similar to those of
a natural son born after the adoption of the illatom son-in-law, his rights F
are not identical to those of conferNd by law on a son or an adt},Jted son.
The illatom son-in-law does not succeed to the properties of his
father-in-law by survivorship, but only on account of custom or an
agreement giving him a share in the property of his father-in-law. His
position is not identical to that of an adopted son because he does not lose G
his rights in his natural family on being taken as an illa~om son-in- law
-{ and continues to be entitled to a share in the property of his natura!
father. It is not possible to equate an illatom son-in-law who has attained
majority with a major son for the purposes of Section 4A of' the Ceiling
Act. (520 F-G, 521 EJ H
1
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A 4. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act
~
·We
---whereby Section 4A was inserted into the Ceiling Aet indicate that an
illatom son-in-law, who does not lose his rights in his own family, cannot
be regarded as a major son of his father-in-law for tbe purposes of the
Ceiling Act. Ifhe was so regarded, there would be a double benefit, because
of his presence as the ceiling area of his father-in-law would be increased
B
as well as the ceiling area of bis natural father. That eertainly could not
have been the intention behind the amendment. Since there is no custom of
having an illatom among Muslims and Christians such a construction ).--..-

would lead to disp..rity between the position of Muslims and Christian's on
the one hand and Hindus on the other. That would be contrary to the very
c purpose for which the amendment was made. [522A~C]

Nalluri Kristnamma and another v. Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya and
others, (1918-19) L.R. 46 I.A. 168; Hanumantamma '\I. Rami Reddi, (1882)
L.R.4 I.A. Madras Series 272; Narasayya and others v. Ramacliandrayya
and others, AIR .Cl956] 4~ A.P. 209.;~enumatsa Koti RamachamJra Raju v.
D State ofA.P. (1980) 1 (H.C.) Andhra Pradesh Law Journal~. reft:rred to.
,.¥.. ...
Peec/i Ramaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 2 (H.C.)
Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 278, distinguished.

Mayne: Hindu Law and Usages, 13th Edition, Chapter VII, 'Para-
E graph 242, N.R. Raghavachariar, Hindu Law 8th Edition, Paragraph 176;
Molla: Hindu Law, 16th Edition, Para_ 515, Page 534,..J:"eferred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3850 of
1991. ~-

F From the Judgment and Order dated. 21.4.1978 of the Andhra
Pra<,iesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 3974of1977.

A. Subba Rao, G. Narasimhulu and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants.

T.V.S.N. Chari and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Respondent.

G The Judgment of the Court w~ delivered by

KANIA, J. Leave granted. Counsel heard.

As
we are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, we propose to set out the few facts necessary for
·H the appreciation of the arguments before us very briefly. ·
NARAYANAPPAv. GOVI'.OFA.P.(KANIA,J.) 517

The parties belong to the Reddi caste in an area of Andhra Pradesh · A
which originally formed part of the Madras Presidency. Appellant No. 1 is
the illatom son-in-law of Appellant No. 2. The appellants filed their respec-
tive declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as
"the Ceiling Act"). In his declaration, appellant No. 2 claimed an increase
in the ceiling unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant B
No. 1 as his illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority had a
share in the properties of his father-in- law, appellant No. 2. Appellant No.
2 deposed in the inquiry held that appellant No. 1 was entitled to a half
share in his properties as his illatom son-in-law. Both of them claimed that
appellant No. 1 was entitled to the aforesaid share under an agreement
(Exhibit A-1). The Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur by its judgment c
dated May 31, 1977, rejected the claim of the appellants and heJd that the
declarant, appellant No. 2 held surplus holding to an extent of 0.4109
standard acres and ·directed him to surrender the excess land. Appellant
No. 1 was declared as not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit. The
appellants preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal,
D
Anantapur which was dismissed on November 4, 1977. Aggrieved by the
order of dismissal made by the said Tribunal, the appellants filed a Civil
Revision Petition No. 3974 o~ 1977 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the· High Court by a
common judgment along with other connected matters on April 21, 1978.
This appeal by special leave is one of the appeals directed against the E
common judgment of the said High Court. .

An illatom son-in-law is in a sense, a creature of custom. It is well
settled by a series of decisions that a custom of illatom adoption prevails
among the Reddi and K~ma castes in territories which earlier formed
part of the then Madras Presidency. It is stated in Mayne's Hindu Law and F
Usages, 13th Edition, Paragraph 242 in Chapter VII, as follows:

"A custom known as that of illatom adoption prevails among
the Reddi and Kamma castes in the Madras Presidency. It
consists in the affiliation of a son-in-law, in consideration of
assistance in the management of the family property. No G
religious significance appears to attach to the act. Neither the
execution of any document nor the performance of any
ceremony is necessary. The incidents of an illatom adoption
have now become crystallized into fixed rules of law by a long
course of decisions. To constitute a person an illatom, a
specific agreement is necessary ..... After the death of the adop- H
< l
SUPREME COURT- REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R. ~

...
I

ter he is entitled to the full rights of a son even as against
A
natural sons subsequently born or a son subsequently adopted .,.
in the usual manner."

It has also been stated by Mayne that an illatom son-in-law has no
right io claim partition with his father-in-law unless there is an express
B agrc;;ment or custom to that effect. An illatom son-in-law is not an adopted
son in any sense. In N.R. Raghavachariar~s Hind.u Law, 8th Edition, in
paragraph 176, it. is stated that an illatom son-in-law loses no rights of
inheritance in his natural family and the property he takes in the adoptive
family is taken by his own relations to the exclusion of those of his adoptive
father. The position, as set out in Mulla's Hindu law, 16th Edition is no
c different. Regarding the position of an illatom son-in-law it has been inter
alia observed by Mulla at para 515 (page 534) as follows:
"He does not lose his right of inheritance in his natural family.
Neither he nor his descendants become coparceners in the
family of adoption though on the death of the adopter he is
entitled to the same rights and the same share as against any
D subsequently born natural son or a son subsequently adopted
in accordance with the ordinary law. He cannot claim a parli-
tion with the father-in-law and the incidence of a joint family,
.. ~

such for instance as right to take by. survivorship, do not apply.
In respect of the property or share that he may get he takes it
as if it were his separate and self-acquired property."
E To cite just a few decisions, the custoirr of having an illatom son-in-
law in the Kamma Castes and the Reddis in Madras Presidency has been
recognised in Na/luri Krismamma and another v. Kamepa/li Ve11katasub-
bayya and others. (1918-19) L.R. 46 I.A. 168. The same custom has also -li.--
been recognised by the decision of a Division · Bench of the Madras High
Court in Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi. (1882) L.R. 4 I.A. Madras Series,
F 272. In Narasayya and others v. Rammachandrayya and others A.LR. (1956]
43 A.P. 209 it has been held that the institution of illatom adoption, that is,
affiliating a son-in-law and giving him a share, is purely a creature of cus-
tom and judicial recognition has been given to it.

Learned CQunsel for the appellants contends that appellant No. 1 as
G an illatom son-in-law of appellant No. 2, was entitled to a half share in the
;.-
property of appellant No. 2. He submitted that an illatom son-:in-law who
had attained the age of majority was in the same position 'as a major son·
and hence, the ceiling area permitted to appellant No. 2 was liable to be
increased by one ceiling unit as appellant No. 1 did not hold any land inde-
pcndently nor in any manner specified under Section 4 A of the Ceiling Act.
H

•I
~
NARAYANAPPA v. GOVf. OF A.P. [KANIA, J.] 519

Before examining the correctness of these submissions, we may refer A
to the relevant provisions of the Ceiling Act. The Ceiling Act which
provided for a ceiling on agricultural holding in Andhra Pradesh was
enacted in 1973 and amended by Act No. 10 of 1977 which was reserved for
the assent of the President and received the same on April 29, 1977. The
said amending Act was made effective from January 1, 1975
B
Section 3 of the said Act is the definition section. Sub-section (c) of
Section 3 defines .the term 'ceiling area' after the amendment as meaning
the extent of land specified in Section 4 or 4A to be the ceiling area.
Sub-section (5) of Section 3 defines the term "family unit" and clause (i)
thereof provides that in case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses
such individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried c
minor daughters; if any, constitute his family unit. Section 4 provides for
the ceiling area. After Section 4 of the said Act, the following Section 4A
was inserted in the Act.

"4A. Increase of ceiling area in cettai11 cases :-
D
Notwithstanding anything in section 4, where an individual or
an individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or
moremajorsonsandanysuchmajo,rsoneitherbyhimselfor
together with other members of the family unit of which he is a
member, holds no land or holds an extent of land less than the
ceiling area, then, the ceiling area, in the case of said individual E
or the family unit of which the said individual is a member
computed in accordance with section 4, shall be increased in
respect of each such major son by an extent of land equal to
the ceiling area applicable to such major son or the family unit
of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the extent of
land by which the land held by such major s9n or the family
F
unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area."
· Section 5 prescribes how the standard holding for different
Cltegories of land is to be computed. Section 8 provides for declaration of
holding by persons whose holding on the notified date together with the
· other lands mentioned therein exceeds the specified limit. Section 9
provides for the determination of the ceiling area by the Tribunal. Section G
10 inter alia provides that if the extent of the holding of a person i& in excess
of the ceiling area, the person shali be liable to surrender the land held in
·excess.

The question which arises is whether, for the purposes of Section 4A
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A of the Ceiling Act, an illatom son-in-law can be regarded as a major son,
that is, whether an illatom son-in-law is covered in the definition of the
term 'major son' as employed in Section 4A of the Ceiling Act. It has been
observed in the impugned judgment that an illatom son-in-law is a creature
of custom and hence, his rights are such as recognised by the custom or
under an agreement duly proved.
B
It has been pointed out in the impugned judgment that the Land
Reforms Tribunal held, on consideration of the evidence, that half share
in property of appellant No. 2 was bequeathed to him and hence, he would
be entitled to half share only after the demise of appellant No. 2. It was
further pointed out that all the lands sto,0d registered in the name of ap-
C pellant No. 2 and hence, appellant No. i was not entitled to any share in
the properties of appellant No. 2 during the life-time of appellant No. 2.
It has been held in the impugned judgment that appellant No. 1 who is
the illatom.son-in-law could not be regarded as a son of appellant No. 2,
although he had some rights which were similar to the rights of a natural
born son or an adopted son. The agreement (Exhibit A) which was set up
D by the appellants and under which appellant No. 1 given a share in the
land belonging to appellant No. 2 in presenti has not been accepted by the
courts below on consideration of the eVidence. It has been held that the
said agreement was a document brought into existence merely with a view
to avoid the ceiling law. In this appeal, we are not inclined to interfere
with these findings of the appeal. It was also held in the impugned judg-
E ment that in the aforestated circumstances, the ceiling limit of appellant
No. 2 was not liable to be increased on the ground that appellant No. 1
was his illatom son-in-law who had attained majority on the relevant date.

Coming to the position in law, the discussion in th~ text books, which
we have referred to in some detail earlier, makes it clear that although an
illatom son-in-law has some rights similar to those of a natural son born
F after the adoption of the illatom son-in-law, his rights are not identical to
those of conferred by law on a son or an adopted son. To cite two main
differences, he does not succeed to the properties of his father-in-law by
survivorship, but only on account of custom or an agreement giving 'him
a share in the property of, his father-in-law. His position is not identical
to that of an adopted son because he does not lose his rights in his natural
G family on being taken as an illatom son-in-law and continues to be entitled
to a share in the property of hi~ natural father. It is, therefore, difficult to
regard an illatom son-in-law who has attained majority as a major son for
the purposes of Section 4A of the Ceiling Act.

Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision
H of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Peeclm
NARAYANAPPAv. GOVf. OF A.P. [ KANIA,J.] 521
Ramaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 2 (H.C.) Andhra A
Pradesh Law Journal 278, where it has been held t.hat after the death of
the father-in-law an illatom son-in-law is entitled to the rights of his son.
If there is an agreement to that effect, the illatom son-in-law is also entitled
to half share in the property of the adoptive father-in-law even during 'his
lifetime. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has not accepted
the correctness of the aforesaid judgment. In our opinion, the view taken B
by the DiVision Bench in the impugned judgment appears to be correct:
From the texts which we have cited earlier it is clear that the general
recognised position is that an illatom. son-in-law becomes entitled to a
share in the property of his father-in-law as his heir; that is, on his death,
it being well-settled in law that there can· be no heir to a living person.
Moreover, in Peechu Ramaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh the con-
clusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the illatom son-in-law
c
was entitled to a half share in presenti, that is, even during the lifetime of
his father-in-law, was based on an agreement to that eff~ct which was duly
proved; In the present case, the agreement (Exhibit A) has been dis-
believed by the authorities below as well as the High'·Court. It has been
pointed out by the Land Reforms Tribunal that the half share to which
appellant No. 1 would be entitled was bequeathed to him in the Will of
D
appellant No. 2 and he would be entitled to that share only on the death
of appellant No. 2. In fact, it was fairly conceded by learned Counsel for
the appellants that he was not in a position to show any evidence on the
basis of which it could. be said that there was a custom applicable to the
parties by which appellant No. 1 as an illatom son-in-law of appellant No.
2 was entitled to a share in the property of appellant No. 2 during the E
latter's lifetime.

In our opinion, it is not possible to equate an illatom son-in- law who
has attained majority with a major son for the purposes of Section 4A of
the -Ceiling Act. As pointed out in Penumatsa Koti Ramachandra Raju v.
State of A.P., (1980) 1 (H.C.) Andhra Pradesh Law Journal, 307, it is quite F
apparent from the language of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Act 10 of 1977, whereby Section 4A was inserted in the Ceiling A<:t,
that Section 4A was inserted in order to obviate the hardship caused to the
Muslims and Christians among whom the concept of a joint family did not
obtain and even major sons did not have any share in the ancestral proper- G
ty during the lifetime of the father unlike in the case of Joint Hindu
Families. It appears that the intention which lay behind the amendment
' was to put Muslims and Christians at par with Hindus in respect of the
ceiling law. It was with this point of view thafitwas provided in Section 4A
of the Ceiling Act that, although the limit of the the father's holding would
be increased on the ground of his having a major son that increase would
H
522 SUPREME COURT REJ>ORTS (1991] SUPP. l S. C.R.

A be Omited to the extent by which the land holding of the major son and his
family unit fell short of the ceiling unit. In our opinion, the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the said amending Act whereby Section 4A was
inserted into the said Act lends support to the view that we are tak\ng, that
an illatom son-in-law, who does not lose his rights in his own family, cannot
be regarded as a major son of his father-in-faw for the purposes of the
B Ceiling Act. If he wa.s so regarded, there would be a double benefit, in the
sense that because of his presence the ceiling area of his father-in-law
would be increased as well as the ceiling area of his natural father and that
certianly could not have been the intention behind the amendment insert·
ing Section 4A. Since there is no custom of having an illatom among Mus-
C lims and Christians such a construction would lead to disparity between the
position of Muslims and Christians on the one hand and Hindus on the
other. That would be contrary to the very purpose for which the amend-
ment was made.

In the result, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal
and it must fail. Appeal dismissed.
D
However, looking to the factf and circumstances of the case there
will be no order as to costs.

V.P.R Appeal dismissed.