AYYANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is filed under Sec. 21 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in L.R.A. No. 24 of 1975 confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad East Division in C.C.No. 26/1/75 dated 10-11-1975. The declarant Chilakala Ayyanna, filed a declaration under Section 8 (I) of the Act, declaring that his family unit consisted of himself, his wife one minor son and one minor daughter and that it was holding Ac. 14-42 cents of dry land conttituting parts of survey Nos. 249/5, 249/7, 250, 251, 398, 400, 401 and 402 of Kongarakalan village in Ibrahimpatnam taluk. In annexurer I to the declaration, he showed that his family unit had purchased Ac. 49-53 cents of dry land in survey Nos. 355, 357, 35S, 219, 354, 359 and 409 of the same village. The declarant's major sons-Jangaiah Yadaiah and Mallaiah, filed separate declarations each claiming Ac. 7-18 cents in survey Nos. 249/5, 249/7, 250, 251, 398, 400, 401 and 402 on the ground that the properties covered by the aforesaid survey numbers, were joint family properties in which the declarant and his three major sons and one minor son were entitled to equal shares. The declarations ware sent for verification and the verification officer reported that the properties shown in the declartions were the self-acruired properties of the declarant the first petitioner herein that he purchased the said lands in his name, that the total area purchased was Ac. 87-03 cents, that the said properties were not the ancestral or joint family properties of the petitioners here in, and that the first petitioner was holding 0.35S1 standard holding in excess of the ceiling limit. Before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the first petitioner stated in his sworn statement, that he was the pattadar of survey No. 249/5, 249/7, 250 and 251 measuring Ac. 21. 51 cents and survey Nos. 38f, 400, 401 and 402 measuring Ac. 9-95 cents, that he purchased the said lands, that survey Nos. 249/5 and 259/7 belonged to Harijan Pentaiah and others that he returned the said lands to them two years back, that he purchased an area of Ac, 24-00 in surney No. 355, 357 and 358 from Goda Sattaiah under a registered sale deed in the year 1965, that a case under section 50-B of the Hyd, Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, that was pending before the Tahsildar Tespect of the said; land that he purchased Ac. 1-89 centr in survey No. 219 in the year 1968 from Harijans but no sale-deed was executing in respect of the said land, that he was in posecssion of the same, and that he purchased Ac. 23-68 cent in survey No. 354, 359 and 409 from Kaki Jangaiah, eight year ago but no registered sale-deed was executed for the same. The Land Reforms Tribunal enquired whether the first petitioner required any further time to file any documents or to lead any evidence but he stated that he did not have any documents. Thereafter the Tribunal on a consideration of the material on record held that survey Nos. 249/5, 249/7, 250, 251, 398, 400, 401 and 402 were not the joint family properties and that the first petitioner did not return the lands in survey Nos. 249/5, and 249/7 to Haiijans, two years back. The first petitioner preferred an appeal to the Lend Reform's Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad District. In the appeal if was contended that (1) Survy Nor- 249/5, 249/7, 230, 251, 391, 400, 401, and 402 were actually purchased by the first appelont's father-in-law Cbilakala malia iah and his mother-in-law Mallamma with their monies is the name of the first petitioner for benefiting the first petitioner and his sons, that the said properties were treated and enjoyed by the first petitoner and bis sons at joint family properties and therefore the first petitioner's sons were also entitled to equal shares in the said lands; (2) that about ten years ago, the Zilla Parished public road was laid over an extent of Ac. 2.00 in survey Nos. 409 and 359 belonging to the first petitioner, (3) that Survey Nos. 249/5 and 249/7 were returned to Harijans more than 15 years ago, and (4) that an area of Ac. 1.00 issued for the purpose of passage to the farhouse constructed by the petitioners on their lands.

(2.) The petitioners filed an application LA. No. 13/76 before the Appellate Tribunal to receive as additional evidence, an affidavit of one Ratna Rao Patwari of Rakaguda village, and the affidavits of the first petitioner and his wife and two others K. Jangaiah and K. Chinnayya. Along with l.A 13/1976 they also filed a certified copy of the Faisal Patta for the year 1967-68 to'show' that survey Nos 409, 360,352 and 351, there is a Zilla Parished Public road over an extent of Ac. 5-03 cents and also a registered sale deed dated 28-2-1950 in relpect of old survey Nos. 52 of Kakagunadr village corresponding new &Nos: 394,400; 401 and 402, to show that the game stands in the name of the first petitioner. In the affidavit filed by Kaki Jangaiah, it is stated that he attested the registered tale deed dated 28-2-1950, that the consideraiion for the said sale was provided by the parents-in-law of the first petitioner, and that survey Nos. 250 and 251 were purchased by the parents-in-law of the first petitioner from K. Venkataiah and others The averments in the affidavit of Kaki Chinnaiah are to the same effect. The Appellate Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioners that survey Nos. 398, 400, 401 and 402 were purchased by the parents-in-law of the first petitioner with their funds, could not be believed, that the sale detd dt. 28-2-1950 in respect of survey Nos. 250 and 251 did hot recite that the consideration was paid by the Parents in-law of the first, petitioner, that the registered sale-deed was not produced into Court, that even assuming that the consideration for the sales was paid by the parents-in-law of the first petitioner, it did not follow that the propeities purchased in the name of the first petitioner by his parents-in-law are joint family properties or ancestral properties, that neither his declaration aor in his sworn statement, did the first petitioner say that the consideration for the sale was paid by his parents-in law with the object of acquiring the property for the benefit of himself and his sons and that the contention that they were joint family properties, was an after-thought and accordingly rejected it. With regard to survey Nos. 249/5 and 249/7, the Tribunal observed that in the sworn statement, the first petitioner stated that the said lands were returned by him to Harijans two years ago, but in the grounds of appeal in ground No. 16. it is stated that the lands were returned to Harijans 15 years ago. The Tribunal therefore held that the plea that the said lands were returned to Harijans, appeared to be purely fictitious. With regard to survey Nos. 359 and 409, the appellate Tribunal observed that the certified copy of the Faisal Patti does not show that there is a public road running through survey Nos. 359 and that it shows that about Ac. 1.20 cents in survey No, 409 appears to be under a public road. The total extent of survey No. 409 as given in the Faisal Patti it Ac. 13.31 cents. In the enclosure II to the declaration, the first petitioner claimed that only Ac. 4.00 in survey No. 409 was held by him. Further in the declaration, the petitioner did not mention that a Zilla Parishad road passes through the four acres belonging to the first petitioner in survey No. 409, and that it might be that the road is passing through the portion of survey No. 409 which is not held by the first petitioner. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate Tribunal held that a reasonable inference could be drawn, that no part of Ac. 4.00 in survey No. 409, is covered by the Zilla Parishad road. The appellate Tiibucal also disbelieved the plea that Ac. 1.00 of land was being used as a passage for the petitioner's farm houses as such a plea was not mentioned in the declaration in the sworn statement. The Tribunal also rejected the application for admitting additional evidence as no grounds were made out for admitting the same at the appellate stage. However the Tribunal referred to the said documents, and rejected both the appeal and the petition LA. No. 13/1976. In this appeal, it is contended by Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy learned Counsel for the petitioners, that both Tribunals erred in holding that the property was not the joint-family property. The facts disclose that the joint-family of the petitioners, did not possess any ancestral or joint-family property at its inception. Therefore none of the lands held by the first petitioner is ancestral property. It is not the case of the petitioners that the properties were acquired by all the members of the joint-family by joint exertion. On the other hand it is admitted that the lands were purchased by the ptrents-in-law of the first petitioner with their funds in tbc name of the first petitioner. Thus the properties held by the first petitioner are hit self-acquired properties. It is contended by Sri Pratap Reddy, that the first petitioner was takes as illatom son-in-law, that the 1st petitioner and his sons constitute members of a Hindu joint family, and that the properties purchased with the funds provided by the parents-in-law of the first petitioner for the benefit of the 1st petitioner and his sons, constitute joint family piopertie.1. The plea that the 1st petitioner wat taken as illatom son-in law and that the properties were purchased by bis parents-in law in his name for the benefit of himself and his sens, was not mtnticrcd in the declaration or in the sworn statement. Moreover there is abtclutely no material on record to show that the first petitioner was taken as illatom son-in-law.

(3.) It it also not established whether custom of illaticm is recogniesd in the area to which the petitioners belong. There is no evidence to show that the first petitioner was taken as illatom son-in-law. The two essential conditions of illatom are, that the adoptee must marry the daughter of the adopter, and there shculd be an agreement to give him a share. The illatom son in-law does not become an adopted son in the strict or realilense of adoption. In Mulla's Hindu Law, it stated as follows; "The son-in-law does not become an adopted on in the strict or real sense of adoption. He does not losee his right of inheritance in his natural family. Neither he nor his descendants become coparceners in family of adoption though on the death of the adopter he is entitled to the same right and the same share as against any subsequently born natural son or a son subsequently adopted in accordance with the ordinary law. He cannot claim a partition with the father-in-law, and the incidents of a joint family, such for instance as right to take by survivorship, do not apply. In respect of the property or share that he may get he takes it as if were his separate and self-acquired property." The very fact that the properties were purchased by the parents- in-law in the name of the first petitioner, shows, that he was not taken in illatom, because in the case of an illatom adoption, it is only by virtue of an agreement that he acquired a right to a share in the property of his father-in-law. Even assuming that the first petitioner got the properties by way of illatom adoption still the same would be his self-acquired or separate property and not joint family property as between himself and his sons.