B. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY (D) BY LRS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The father of the appellant nos. 7, late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy, the husband of appellant no. 3, separate declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973. By Order dated 23.1.1977, the Tribunal that family of late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy was entitled to hold one standard holding under the Act and the excess of 4.3360 standard holdings to be surplus land. Aggrieved by this Order, an appeal was preferred before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as LRA No. 1107177 which allowed. Aggrieved by this Order, a revision petition C.R.P. No. 7171179 filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, during the of the Revision, B. Chandrashekhar Reddy died and his LRs were impleaded. Pending this Revision application, there was a State amendment 29 of the Hindu Succession Act whereby Section 29A was inserted. appellants contended that they were e:ititled to the benefit of Section 29-A and thus an additional ground was sought to be raised in the Petition. The High Court permitted them to urge the additional ground. the pleas raised by them were not allowed by the High Court and by the same, the present appeal is filed.

p. 872, margin A

We heard the appellants' Counsel and the Counsel for the learned Senior Couuse1, Shri M.N. Ra~ urged before us that by Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters of a Hindu family acquired rights as a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family and have got right by birth; hence, they are to be treated on the same footing major sons and it was argued that the ceiling on land should have treating them as additional members of the family. However, the High rejected the plea of the appellants and held that the amendment 29 of the Hindu Succession Act will not alter.the position and the herein are not entitled to get any additional share.

p. 872, margin E

In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants, we consider the definition of the term 'family unit' which is defined 3(1) in the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) which is as follows:- "3(f)'family unit' means - (i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried

pp. 872–873, margin G

minor daughters, if any ; (ii) In the case of an individual who has no spouse, such

p. 873, margin A

and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; (iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons

p. 873, margin A

unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody (iv) where an individual and his or spouse are both dead,

p. 873, margin B

sons and unmarried minor daughters."

p. 873, margin C

As per Section 3(f), the 'family unit' takes into consideration, purpose of the Act, an individual or his or her spouse and their and their unmarried minor daughters. Unmarried major daughters included in the definition of the 'family unit'.

p. 873, margin C

'Ceiling Area' is prescribed under Section 4 of the Act. Section with explanation reads as follows:- "(I) The ceiling area in the case of family unit consisting of than five members shall be an extent of land equal to

p. 873, margin D

holding. (2) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of than five members shall be an extent of land equal to holding plus an additional extent of one-fifth of holding for every such member in excess of five, so

p. 873, margin D

the ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings. (3) The ceiling area in the case of every individual member of a family unit, and in the case of any other person be an extent of land equal to one standard holding Explanation:- In the case of a family unit, the ceiling be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by all

p. 873, margin E

of the family unit."

p. 873, margin G

Section 4(A) is an additional benefit conferred on major 4(A) reads as follows:- "4. A Increase of ceiling area in certain cases:-

p. 873, margin G

Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual who is a member of a family unit, has one sons any such major son either by himself or together members of the family unit of which he is a member, holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then, area, in the case of the said individual or the family said individual is a member computed in accordance shall be increased in respect of each such major son land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such family unit of which he is a member, or as the case extent of land by which the land held by such major unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area."

p. 874, margin A

Benefit of Section 4(A) is given only to persons who on the date of commencement of the Act. In the definition of the major sons are not included. If on computation of the ceiling area individual or a family unit in accordance with Section 4 the individual unit holds in excess of the ceiling area, to which it is entitled, would be determined as excess under Section 9 of the Act would have to be surrendered as laid down under Section I 0 in case of an individual, who is a member of family unit has one sons and any such major son either by himself or together with of the family unit of which he is a member holds an extent the ceiling area of the individual or of the family unit which has to be increased as laid down under Section 4-A. If an individual or major son holds an extent which falls short of the ceiling area, that deficit be added to the said individual or the individual who is family. If there is more than one major son, the extent by which of each of his major sons falls short ofthe ceiling area, would the holding of said individual.

p. 874, margin C

The argument of the appellant's Counsel is that the same be extended to the major unmarried daughters. It is submitted date of the commencement of the Act, appellants 6 and 7 were daughters staying with the declarant. Appellant no. 6 got married and the appellant no. 7 remained unmarried. The contention Counse.l is that Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the daughters are to be treated of the co-parcenery and they are entitled to equal shares as of the matter, they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4-A of of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:- "Sec. 29-A -Equal rights to daughter in coparcenery property:- Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 6 of the Act:- (i) In a joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son had have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship; and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as

pp. 874–875, margin F

the son (ii) At partition in such a Joint Hindu Family the coparcenery property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same

p. 875, margin C

share as is allotable to a son; Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition shall be a!lotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; Provided further that the share allotable to the pre-deceased child or a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of such pre-deceased daughter as the case may be. (iii) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause ( i ) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenery ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed

p. 875, margin C

of by her by will or other testimentary disposition; (iv) nothing in this Chapter shall apply to a daughter married before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (A.P.

p. 875, margin F

Amendment) Act, 1989; (v) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a partition which had been effected before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (A.P. Amendment) Act, 1989."

p. 875, margin G

The provisos to sub-Section (iv) & (v) of Section 29(A) are important in the sense that it is specifically mentioned that the benefit of Section can be invoked only by major daughters if they are not married prior commencement of Section 29(A) of the Act. The said provision came effect from 15.5.1986. Appellant No. 4 and 5 married prior to 15.5.1986. sixth appellant was married on 29.8.1986, i.e., after the commencement Section 29(A). Appellants 6 and 7 were minor daughters as on 1.1. 75, of the commencement of the Act. Appellant No. 6, Kumudini Devi was on 1.5.1962 and the appellant no. 7 Sridevi was born on 2.3.1971. Appellants 4 & 5 and 6 were major daughters and they were married at the commencement of the Ceiling Act and appellant nos. 6 and 7 were minors that date, and were unmarried. They were treated as members of the and the declarant must have derived benefit of such fixation of the So, in any view of the matter, Section 29-A has no impact on the fixation the ceiling as far as these appellants are concerned. It is true that by 29(A) of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters acquired a right as they were deemed to be treated as co-parceners of the joint family and have got a right to seek partition of the joint family property but as the fixation of the ceiling, in the instant case, Section 29(A) does not any additional benefit to the appellant nos. 6 and 7.

p. 876, margin A

The learned Senior Counsel, Shri M.N. Rao contended that unmarried daughters are not treated as the members of the family there is denial of justice to daughters, vis-a-vis sons, there is clear violation of principles of equality and there is discrimination between unmarried major daughters on the one hand, and the IT)ajor sons and minor children other hand, in the matter of fixation of ceiling area under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The appellants have challenged any of the provisions of the Act and it would not be proper look into the plea of discrimination at this stage, especially in relation legislation on agrarian reforms. We do not, therefore, propose to go constitutional validity of any of these provisions.

p. 876, margin D

The appeal is without any merits and the same is dismissed, however, without costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 876, margin G