STATE OF A P Vs. VIDYASAGAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The question that falls for consideration is whether a person who is admitted as an illatomson-in-law into the family, is entitled to a share in the property of his adoptive father on the notified date i.e. 1-1-1976, even though the marriage has not taken place by that date.

(2.) The facts that give rise to this question are as follows:- The 1st respondent herein was inducted into the family of the 2nd respondent as an illotom son-in-law in the year 1966 due to the fact that the later had no male issue and had only one daughter. The agreement was thai the 1 st respondent would marry the daughter of the 2nd respondent and he would be given half share in the landed property of the family. The marriage was actually performed on 20-6-1975. Both the respondents filed separate declarations showing that each one of them is entitled to a half share in the lands held by the family. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak, clubbed both the declarations and disposed them of by a common order holding that the 1st respondent is not entitled to a share as the property is the self acquired property of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent holds 1.9921 standard holding. Both the respondents preferred an appeal and the Appellate Tribunal at Sangareddy disposed of the same by its order dated 3-5-76. The Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal in a separate order held that 1st respondent who is admittedly an illatom son-in-law would be entitled to a half-share in the family property and in the result there would not be any excess to be surrendered by the 2nd respondent. The Member of the Tribunal however disagreed with the Chairman and held that the marriage of the 1st respondent was performed much later than the notified date on which date the 1st respon dent and the daughter of the 2nd respondent were not bound by the wed lock and therefore the 1st respondent cannot be treated as an illatom son-in-law, in which case he cannot claim a share in the property. Under Rule 14(d) of the A.P. Land Reforms Rules the decision of the Chairman shall be the decision of the Tribunal. The Government has preferred this revision questioning the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended that one of the essential conditions of the illatom adoption is that the adoptee must marry the daughter of the adopter and after fulfilment of that condition only he will be entitled to a share in the family property, and therefore on the notified date he was not an illatom son-in-law and hence he cannot claim a share in the family property. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the 1st respondent has been inducted into the family as an illatom son- in-law with an agreement to give him a half share and it is not necessary that the marriage should take place immediately. According to the learned counsel the marriage in fact has taken place on 20-6-1975. For the purpose of the Ceiling Act by virtue of the existing agreement the 1st respondent must be treated as an illatom son-in-law even though on the notified date the marriage has not taken place.