1. Both the lower Courts have found as a fact that Busi Reddi was 'affiliated' into the family of Guruva Reddi: and this finding cannot be questioned in second appeal. We were at first in some doubt as to the meaning to be attached to the term 'affiliated': but after a consideration of the lower Courts' judgments, the wording of issue 2 and the plaint allegations, we are satisfied that the term was used and understood as a convenient expression for the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint. By these we understand it to be implied that Guruva Reddi without performing an adoption in the usual sense understood among Hindus took his nephew Busi Reddi into his family, gave him an undivided moiety. of his property and jointly enjoyed the property with him till his (Guruva Reddi's) death. The lower Courts find that this was done: and further, that after Guruva Reddi's death, an actual partition was effected and the property was divided between Busi Reddi and Guruva Reddi's daughter, Atchamma.
2. No ground is shown for holding such a transaction to be illegal or inoperative. It took place 70 years ago: and it is not denied that Guruva Reddi was sole owner of the property and could do what he liked with it.
3. If this gift to Busi Reddi of a moiety of the property be held valid it cannot be affected by any adoption by Guruva's widow after Guruva's death.
4. The decision of the lower Courts is correct, and the appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The 3rd and 4th respondents' memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.