KONJETI KOTAYYA Vs. KONJETI ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was married to the appellant's son, Konjeti Narayana, who died on the 17th March, 1939. The father was joint with his son and they were the only coparceners. On the 3rd April, 1939, the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gurzala for a partition of the family estate. She based her claim on the rights conferred upon her by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. An asset of the family consisted of a lease of 11.13 acres of agricultural land for a period of 20 years, commencing from the 3rd March, 1934. One of the questions raised in the suit was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a half interest in this lease. The defendant contended that the Indian Legislature had no power to legislate with regard to agricultural land and therefore the Act could not be read as conferring upon the plaintiff an interest in the lease. At the time of the trial the Federal Court had not given its decision in In re the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938 and In re a Special Reference under Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.1 In that reference the Federal Court held that these Acts did not operate to regulate succession to agricultural land in the Governors' Provinces, but operated to regulate devolution by survivorship of property other than agricultural land. The District Munsiff held that the Act was intra vires the Central Legislature and consequently the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the lease as well as to a half share in all the other properties of the joint family. The defendant appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. By that time the Federal Court had delivered its judgment in the case referred to. The Subordinate Judge held, however, that the judgment did not affect the right of the plaintiff to a half share in the lease. The lessor was indebted to the family in the sum of Rs. 400. He was not able to repay the amount, but in satisfaction of the debt he granted to the joint family the right to occupy and enjoy the 11.13 acres of land for a period of 20 years. In these circumstances, the Subordinate Judge regarded the lease as representing a debt due to the family and on this footing dismissed the appeal except as regards one item. The defendant has now appealed to this Court.

(2.) BEFORE the Subordinate Judge it was suggested that the interest created on the 3rd March, 1934, was more in the nature of a mortgage; but this is not the real position. The interest created was undoubtedly that of a lessee, the consideration for the lease being the Rs. 400 which the lessor owed to the family; and we shall deal with the appeal on this basis; although in passing we may say that the same considerations would appear to arise even if the document constituted a mortgage and not a lease.

(3.) THE Federal Court held that in this state of affairs the Central Legislature had no power to legislate with regard to succession to agricultural land in Governors' Provinces. Agricultural land was exclusively a Provincial subject. The question then is whether any distinction can be drawn between corporeal and incorporeal rights in agricultural land. In our judgment, there cannot, and if any support for this opinion is needed we think that it is to be found in the following passage from the judgment of the Federal Court in Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia Megh Raj v. Bahadur: