Case: Chaliagulla Ramachandrayya Vs. Boppana Satyanarayana &amp; Others

1. 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.2. 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., 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 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.3. In contesting 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 reversioner. The main defence however was that even if the properties did belong to Chandrappa, the defendants father Nagayya became entitled to these a s Chandrappas illatom son-in-law. 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 consideration of which Nagayya would inherit the entire property after Chandrappas death.4. The trial Court held that all the suit properties except a small portion did belong to Chandrappa and the plaintiffs would be entitled to 5/6th share of Chandrappas properties and the 6th defendant to the remaining 1/6th share, on the death of Chandrappas widow Ramamma. He however accepted the defence case that Nagayya had become entitled to the property on Chandrappas death as Chandrappas illatom son-in-law and accordingly dismissed the suit.5. On appeal the High Court held that the custom by which an illatom son-in-law inherited property could not be extended to a case where the marriage took place not with the daughter of the owner of the property but with some other relation of his. The High Court also rejected an alternative plea that appears to have been raised before it that Nagaya became entitled to the property on the basis of a contract between him and Chandrappa. In this view of the law, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit.6. It is no longer 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 not the daughter but some other relation of the owner of the property. The alternative contention which was raised before the High Court has however been repeated before us. It has been urged that there was a good and valid contract between Chandrappa and Nagayya, that in consideration of Nagayya marrying Mangamma and looking after Chandrappas property, Chandrappa would make him his heir and that the consequence of this contract was that Nagayya became Chandrappas heir.

Court's reasoning:
13. It may be mentioned that this decision in Venkayyamma Raos case, 43 Ind App 138: (AIR 1916 PC 9) was among the authorities on which the Calcutta High Court relied in Ariff v. Jadunath, ILR 55 Cal 1090   : (AIR 1929 Cal 101  ). The High Court held that the result of equitable principles which had been applied in many cases in England and were also applied by the Privy Council in Venkayyamma Raos Case 43 Ind App 138: (AIR 1916 PC 9) was that the defendant had acquired the rights of a permanent tenant. When this very case went up to the Privy Council in appeal Ariff v. Jadunath, 58 Ind 91: (AIR 1931 PC 79  ) the High Courts decision was reversed. The Privy Council pointed out that the dicta in Venkayyamma Raos Case. 43 Ind App 138: (AIR 1916 PC 9) did not mean "that equity can override the provisions of a statute and (where no registered document exists and no registrable document can be procured), confer upon a person a right which the statute enacts, shall be conferred only by a registered instrument.14. This decision of the Privy Council in 58 Ind App 91 : (AIR 1931 PC 79  ) was given in January 1931. Nearly two years before that. Section 53A had been enacted in the Transfer of Property Act introducing in a limited form the doctrine of equity of part performance. There can in our opinion be no doubt that after S. 53A was enacted the only case in which the English doctrine of equity of part performance could be applied n India is where the requirements of S. 53A are satisfied. Quite clearly, S. 53A does not apply to the facts of the present case. It must therefore be held that the considerations of equity cannot confer on Nagayya or his heirs any title in the lands which under the statue could be conferred only by a registered instrument.15. Our conclusion therefore is that the High Court was right in holding that Nagayya or his heirs had acquired no right in the property.