THAMMA APPIREDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). THE petitioner has filed a declaration under section 8 of the Act on behalf of a family unit consisting of himself and his wife. He has no sons. He has two daughters, who are married long ago. THE petitioner claimed exemption from his holding the lands said to have been gifted by him to his two daughters and also two more items which he is said to have transferred and given possession to the transferee under an agreement of sale. Sri L.P.R.VITHAL, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the revision petition with regard to the lands said to have, been transferred under the agreement of sale. He pressed the revision petition only with regard to the lands gifted to the daughters. THE Petitioner's first daughter was married in the year 1956. According to him at the time of the marriage he gifted to her Ac. 4-89 cents and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. But later he executed a regular gift deed, Ex. A-54 dated 25-4-1972 for an extent of Ac. 3-06 cents of land. THE second daughter was married in the year 1962. According to the petitioner at the time of marriage he gifted Ac. 8-87 cents of land. But he executed Ex. A-55 gift deed dated 12-3-1972 in her favour for an extent of Ac. 2-86 cents of land. According to the petitioner, he executed the gift deeds for lesser extents only to avoid payment of gift tax. Whatever it is, now he claims exemption only with regard to the two extents of land gifted to his daughters under Ex. A-54 and A-55 gift deeds. THE Tribunal found the daughters were in possession and enjoyment though for less than 12 years except with regard to an extent of Ac. 1-76 cents, which was found to be in possession and enjoyment of the first daughter for over twelve years. On the ground that the first daughter has perfected her title with regard to this extent of land the Appellate Tribunal found that extent has to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. However, with regard to the remaining extents covered by the gift deeds the appellate Tribunal refused to exempt the same from the holding of the petitioner on the ground that the gift deed came into existence subsequent to 24 1-1971. Under ths provisions of the Act all alienations made subsequent to 24-1-1971 are not wade valid. Tt is only alienations made subsequent to 2-5-1972 that are made null and void. As regards transfers between those two dates the burden put on the person who transferred is that he did not make the transfer in anticipation of and with a view to avoid or defeat the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling of agricultural holdings. From a reading of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal thought that the transfers made subsequent to 24-1-1971 should automatically be disregarded for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area of the person who made the transfers. THE Appellate Tribunal has concluded that as the registered gift deeds were executed subsequent to 24-1-1971, it must be held that they were executed only with a view to avoid the land ceiling laws. Though the execution of the gift deeds was delayed, the evidence shows that the gifts were made much earlier and the daughters were in enjoyment of the lands in question. That itself shows that the gifis were not created and the lands were not transferred to the daughters in order to avoid the ceiling laws. According to the finding the daughters were in possession and enjoyment of the lands since 1969. THE petitioner has no sons. It is but natural that he would have made some gift of lands, to his daughters at the time of their marriages. Accordingly it is declared that the petitioner is not liable to include in his holding Ac. 3-06 cents of land which is the subject matter of Ex. A-54 gift deed, and Ac. 2-86 cents of land which is the subject matter of Ex. A-55 gift deed. THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent, mentioned above. No. costs.