PURNACHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision-petition filed under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 it is contended that the two items of land given by the petitioner to his daughers towards Pasupukumkuma at the times of their marriages in 1966 and 1967 should be excluded from his holdings. Both the Tribunals below rejected this contention firstly on the ground that the partition list Ex. 12 and the subsequent partition deed Ex. A-13 dated 7-10-1971 executed between the petitioner and his son do not show as to what lands were given to the petitioner's daughters and that P.W. 2 the son-in-law of the petitioner stated that the land revenue was being paid by the donees only from 1973. The Tribunals also held that even if the said gifts were, true they were only oral gifts and that in the absence of any registered document the donees did not acquire any titile to the land gifted and that it was not contended that the donees had acquired any title by adverse poisession by more than 12 years prior to 1-1-1975. It is contended by Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao that the partition list and the partition deed and the other oral evidence establish the truth of the gifts. But the Tribunal's finding is one of fact and cannot be interfered with in revision.

(2.) Even otherwise, as rightly held by the Tribunals below in the absence of any registered deeds of gift, the donees would not acquire any title. Sri Chandrasekhara Rao sought to contend that under Hindu law, a gift of immovable property to a daughter at the time of her marriage towards Pastipukumkuma is valid even in the absence of a registered document. In support of this contention he has drawn my attention to a passage in "Hindu Law Principles and Precedents" my N.R. Raghavachari and also three rulings Smt. Kamala Devi and Another vs. R. Bachupal Gupta and others (1) Seramdaya Pillai and another (2) and Madam Pillai vs. Badrakali Ammal and another (3). In the last of the cases, it wag held that a transfer of land of the value of more than Rs. 100/-by a husband to his wife to be enjoyed by her during her life-time in discharge of her claim to future maiatenance could be made without writing. The learned Judge held that the transaction there did not amount to a gift or exchange or sale and, therefore the transfer there was aot required by law to be in writing. In Smt. Kamala Devi and another vs. Bachupal Gupta and other (1) it was observed in paragaph 20 that it is the imperative religious duty and moral obligation of a father, mother or other g uardian to give a girl in marriage to a suitable husband and that gifts by a widow of landed property to her daughter or son-in-law on the occasion of the marriage or any ceremonies connected with the marriage are well-recognised in Hindu Law and if a promise is made, of a gift such a promise may be fulfilled afterwards and that a gift made long after the marriage may be supported on the ground that the gift when made fulfils that moral and religious obligation. But the above observations only show that a Hindu widow has power to make an alienation of a reasonable portion of her husband's estate in favour of the daughter as marriage dowry. But that does not mean that a gift of immovable property could be made without a registered document. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly lays down that for purposes of making a gift of immovable property the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the doner and attested atleast by two witnesses. Therefore while under the personal law of Hindus a gift can be effected by a widow at the time of the marriage of a daughter, the gift of the landed property can only be effected in the manner laid down by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further the facts of the case show that the marriage was performed on the 10th May 1938 and the gift of four hour houses made at the time of the marriage and which was accepted was later confirmed on the occasion of the gowna ceremony and possession of the houses was also given to the donce and subsequently the deed of gift was executed and registered two years after the marriage and it is that gift that was challenged in that suit as not valid on the ground that the widow had no power to make such a gift under Hindu Law and it is that contention that was repelled by their Lordships. This ruling therefore does not support the contention of the petitioner that a gift of immovable property can be made without a registered document.

(3.) Serandaya Pillai and Another In Re (1) is a case where a contract entered into by the Piaintiffs with the first defendant therein was that in consideration of the first defendant marrying their sister, some properties should be settled upon him. The marriage took place and the first defendant was put in possession of the same. Subsequenlty the plaintiffs sought for a declaration and injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession on the ground that the gift was invalid being hit by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act under section 17 of the Registration Act. The learned Judge Ramaswami J. held that the transaction entered into by the parties there was neither a sale nor an exchange nor a gift and that it fell within the scope of section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act and required no writing and no registration. That case also does not help tht petitioner. There, it was found that the transaction was not a gift. Moreover, the observations towards the end of the judgment at page 506 show that where a transaction is a gift of immovable peoperty it should be effected by writing and should be registered. The observations are as follows :