JUDGMENT
1. The case is from a district where the custom of “illatom” prevails. Though the position of an “illatom” son-in-law was not claimed for the 2nd defendant, the fact remains that he was taken into Lakshminarasa Reddy’s house for the express purpose of marrying a girl who was treated as his daughter and in Exhibit X, the 2nd defendant is described as his “son-in-law.” It may be that because the daughter was a foster-daughter that the “Illatom” custom was not pleaded but all the circumstances show the existence of an agreement that the 2nd defendant was to take Lakshminarasa Reddy’s property in consideration of his marrying the foster-daughter and residing with and managing the affairs of Lakshminarasa Reddy. This was, no doubt, a valid contract and on that ground, the case was rightly decided by the District Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
