B CHANDRA REDDY DIED Vs. PULLAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arises in this revision as to the meaning of the words 'lineal descendants by blood of or adoption in Sub-Clause (a) of the Explanation to section 40 of the A P (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Admittedly, one Ramulu was the protected tenant of the land in ques- tion. He died some time in 1972. Thereafter the question arose as to who should be recorded as the protected tenant under Sec. 40 of the Act. Pullemma who h the 1st respondent herein filed an application, sometime in 1976 before the Revenue Authorities claiming to be the daughter of late Ramulu and for being recorded as the protected tenant in the place of her father. Before the Tahsildar the land-holder filed a counter on 29-5-1976 disputing that Pullamma was t!%' daughter of late Ramulu. At the hearing of the matter before the Tahsildar Puliamma filed two certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat and village Officer of Shahabad and also two affidavits of Gundala Chandraiah and Jan- gaiah. The Tahsildar who conducted the enquiry accepted that Pullamma was the daughter of late Ramulu as contended by her. He, accordingly, rejected the contention of the land-holdsr. Even so, he refused to record Pullamma as the protected tenant, in the place of her father on the ground that she could not be treated as a 'lineal descendant by blood or adoption' as specified in sub- clause (a) of the Explanation to Sec. 40 of the Act. Against the said order there was an appeal before the Joint Collector on an earlier occasion. At the stage of the appeal; Pullanma's son, Anantaiah, claiming to ba the adopted son of late Ramulu got impleaded and claimed to be declared as the 'lineal descendant' of late Ramulu and for being recognised as the protected tenant. In that appeal, the said Anantaiah filed a certified copy of a judgment of a civil court declaring that he was the adopted son of Ramulu who was his maternal grandfather. The said judgment was rendered in 0. S. No. 280/80 on the file of the District Mun- sif's Court, Wast and South, Hyderabad. The plaintiff in this suit is Anantaiah while the 1st defendant therein is his own mother Pullamma and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are his father and brother. A copy of the Judgment dt. 27-2-1981 in that suit, which is produced before me, discloses that there was a contest between the parties Anantaiah examined himself as P.W. 1 and one Jangaiah as P.W. 2 to speak to the adoption. Pullamma examined herself as DW 1 but she admitted the adoption of the plaintiff by her father. In the result the suit was decreed.

(3.) It is this judgment that the said Anantaiah relied upon before the Joint Collector. On the basis of the said judgment, the Joint Collector passed an order accepting the adoption of the said Anantaiah and held that he should be recorded as a 'lineal descendant'. Against the said judgment, the landholder had filed an earlier revision C R P No. 2187/82 in this court which came up before Rama Rao J . It was contended before the learned Judge, for the landholder, that the Joint Collector ought to have conducted an independent enquiry instead of straight away accepting the findings of the civil court. The learned Judge accepted the said' contention and remanded the matter to the Joint Collector.