VEERAREDDY LAXMINARASAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two revision petitions a common question of law arises as to whether the lands held by a Hindu lady married in the year 1959 while the first wife of her husband was living could be included in the family unit of her husband and first wife. The petitioners in these two civil revision petition are the two ladies married to one Jagannadha Reddy since deceased. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 6143 of 1979 is the, first wife, and her sister, the petitioner in the other civil revision petition was married to Jagannadha Reddy in the year 1959. IN C.R.P. No. 1923 of 1977, Judgment dated 28th December, 1977 this Court held that having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, since Hindu male cannot contract a second marriage while his first wife is living, that marriage is void. The lands held by such a lady cannot be computed in the holding of the family unit of the husband. The petitioner raised the contention that the lands held by the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 6144 of 1979 cannot be included in the holding of the other petitioner or that of Jagannadha Reddy's family unit. That contention was rejected on the ground that there, is no evidence. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was patently in error in not giving an opportunity to the, petitioner. There can be no two opinions on the question that a Hindu male cannot take a second wife while his first wife is living and such a marriage is not valid. That being so, she does not acquire the status of a legally wedded wife and consequently she cannot be treated as a member of the "family unit" under the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. The petitioner states that even in the year 1970 O.S. No. 86 of 1970 on the file of Sub-Court, Karimnagar, was filed claiming a share in her mother's property. IN that it was stated that Jagannadha Reddy had married the petitioner Vinoda Devi in the year 1959. That suit ended in a compromise decree and certain properties were given to the share of Vindoa Devi. Thus prima facie it would appear that Vinoda Devi was given in marriage to Jagannadha Reddy in the year 1959. If that be so the marriage is not valid and Vinoda Devi cannot be deemed to be a member of the "family unit" of Jagannadha Reddy or his first wife. The lands which fell to her share cannot be computed in the holding of the other petitioner's family unit. It is stated that Survey Nos. 996 and 977 are two such survey numbers which fell to her share. The lands covered by these survey numbers cannot therefore, be computed in the holding of the other petitioner's family unit. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal which had allowed this point to be, raised in the appeal ought to have given the parties an opportunity to prove these facts. Since the matter has been remanded on other points to the primary Tribunal, the primary Tribunal is directed to give an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, on this point as well and it is further directed to dispose of the same on merits.

(2.) ANOTHER contention raised by the petitioners is, that an extent of Ac. 0-23 guntas in Survey No. 1011 and another extent of Ac. 0-34 guntas in Survey No. 1005 is covered by road. That assertion is supported by the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. The certificate, states that this road was laid as far back as in 1969. That being so, the said extents cannot be computed in the holding- of the petitioner. The primary Tribunal shall exclude this extent in arriving at the holding of the petitioner's family unit. The matter is thus remitted to the primary Tribunal for frs?h disposal is accordance with the judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as modified by this Judgment. These two civil revision petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150 in each. Revisions allowed and remanded.