DOPPELAPUDI HANUMANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks to revise the order of he Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur in Land Reforms Appeal No. 86 of 1976 in so far as the said Tribunal held that the land of the extent of acres 3-94 cents covered by the gift deed (Exhibit, A-1) dated 17th September, 1971 should be included in computing the holding of the petitioner. Sri P. A. Choudary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's husband died in 1957, that they had no issues, that she brought up her sister's daughter, by name Rama Devi as her foster daughter, and later on performed her marriage in 1969 and that she executed a registered will (Exhibit A-10) in and by which she bequeathed acres 3.94 cents in favour of her foster daughter Rama Devi. Subsequently the gift deed Was executed on 17th September, 1971 gifting the properties to Rama Devi. Both the Tribunals ignored this gift deed on the ground that the gift deed came into existence subsequent to 24th January, 1971 and the provisions of section 7 (1) are attracted and it was not established that the gift deed was not executed with a view to avoid the ceiling law.

(2.) SRI Ghoudary, the learned Counsel, submits that this approach of the Tribunals is erroneous in law and the inference drawn from proved facts by the Tribunals is also not correct. He submits that the petitioner had evinced an intention to benefit the legatee, her foster daugher Rama Devi, even as early as in 1956 when she exeucted the will (Exhibit A-10) bequeathing the very same land in favour of her foster daughter and in effectuating her intention she executed the gift deed (Exhibit A-1) on 17th September, 1971 and that these facts are sufficient to discharge the onus cast on the petitioner under section 7 (1) of the Act. I think this submission is well founded. The facts, which are undisputed, are that the petitioner became a widow in 1957, that she had no issues, that she executed a will (Exhibit A-10) dated 14th August, 1956 in and by which she bequeathed acres 3.94 cents to her foster daughter, Rama Devi, she also performed her marriage in 1969 and subsequently she executed a gift deed (Exhibit A-1) on 17th Sep. tember, 1971, She no doubt stated that the land was given to Rama Devi as Pasupu Kumkuma in 1969 at the time of her marriage. But the revenue records do not show that possession was given to Rama Devi. Even so the petitioner having brought up Rama Devi as her foster daughter, she might not have taken steps to effect mutation and might have been looking after the lands on behalf of Rama Devi. This by itself, would not cast any doubt about the bona fide intention of the petitioner to settle the lard covered by the gift deed. In fact such an intention is manifest from the dispositions in the will (Exhibit A-10) which was executed long prior to coming into force of the present Ceiling Act or the previous Oiling Act. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner has discharged the burden cast on her under section 7 (1) of the Act that the gift was not made to avoid the ceiling law. There is no evidence contra to establish that the transaction was not bona fide. In the circumstances the Tribunals should have accepted the gift as true and valid and should have excluded the land covered by the said gift deed in the computation of the holding of the petitioner. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the extent of acres. 3.94 cents covered by the gift deed (Exhibit A-1) will be excluded in computing the holdinp of the petitioner. The petitioner will have her costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.