KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. L R TRIBUNAL GUDIVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the only point urged and which arises for consideration is, whether the shares of a minor son in Hindu Joint Family property governed by the Mitakshra law and who had divided from bis father, should be excluded from the holding of the father for determining the extent of the land in excess of the ceiling area, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdinga) Act 1973.

(2.) The question arises this way:- The petitioner filed a declaration under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) in which he had shown his family unit as consisting of himself, his wife and two minor sons. He stated that he had gifted some properties to his daughter in the year 1973 at the time of her marriage but this was not effected by a registered document and herefore the land covered by the gift was also taken into account computing the holding of the petitioner. The land Reforms Tribunal founl that the declarant owned 0.6 42 standard Holdings, his wife 0 0768 standard Holdings and their minor sons owned 0.3585 standard holdings; and the aggregate of the said lands held by the members of the family unit came to 10.695 standard holdings. Under Section 4 (1) of ths Act, the ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than five members being one standard holding, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the family unit of the declarant was holding 0.0695 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area which the declarant was liable to surrender under section 10 (I) of the Act.

(3.) On appeal the only point urged before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was that under a partition deed Ex. A-1 dated 24-10 1971 the declarant and his two minor sons had become divided and according to the partition deed, the declarant was allotted Ac. 5-73 cents, one son Ac. 7-98 and the other son Ac. 8-01-1/2 cents and the shares of the sons which came to Ac. 15-991/2 cents should be excluded from the holding of the declarant in which case the declarant's holding would be within the ceiling area. This contention was negatived by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that though the partition deed (ex A-I) was valid, still in view of the definition of 'family unit' which includes the individual, hig spouses and their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; whether the minor son is divided or undivided, it made no difference and even the separate property of the minor son and also properties of the other members of the family unit have to be aggregated for determining the ceiling area of the family unit. In that view, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. It is this view of the Appellate Tribunal that is challenged in this revision petition filed under section 22 of the Act.