PATHURI GANGARAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises rather a vital question, i.e., whether a compromise decree rendered subsequent to the notified date (1-1-1975) in a suit instituted prior to the advent of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, would amount to alienation by way of surrender within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act

(2.) Before adverting to the contentions and counter-contentions, the relevant facts in brief may be noticed. There was a contest and a rival contest with regard to a will and a rival will as sought to be set up by the petitioners father-in-law and his brother. Certain suits and counter suits were filed. They were O.S. No. 17 of 1964, O.S. No. 675 of 1962 and O.S. No, 769 of 1974. All these suits were clubbed and heard together. The contest was with reference to the wills dated 7-10-1962 and 20-9-1962 The petitioner who claimed the rights through his father-in-law, was however, in possession of three extents of land comprising Ac. 2-40 cents, Ac. 2-13 cents and Ac. 9-97 cents. All these extents were the subject-matter of the wills. While so, eventually on 21-4-1976, a compromise was effected by which two extents, viz., Ac. 2-40 cents and Ac. 2-13 cents compromised in S. Nos. 678 and 347/2 respectively, were given away by the declarant-petitioner while retaining Ac. 9-97 cents. No mesne profits were to be paid by either of the parties. However, at the time when the declaration was filed by the petitioner, it was stated in the declaration that a litigation was pending with regard to these three items; and subsequently, after the compromise, the compromise decree was filed. It is in this set up that the Tribunal below came to decide as to whether the two extents that were given away by the petitioner under a compromise, will have to be excluded from his holding or not. Both the Tribunals below held that these were alienations within the meaning of Section 17 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act and, therefore, the same cannot be excluded in compute in the holding of the petitioner. Hence this revision.

(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are, first, the compromise is only a family arrangement and, therefore, it cannot amount to alienation within the meaning of Section 17 of the Ceiling Act; secondly, it is not surrender or relinquishment of any title but giving up of claim under the compromise decree and, therefore, it is not prohibited by Section 17; and thirdly, there is virtually no cross-examination of the witnesses so as to establish that the compromise was not bona fide.