GANDLA VENKAT PAPAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the declarant in C. C. No. 773/M.D.K. of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak, is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in L.R. No. 438 of 1976. The petitioner inter alia pleaded that his father Gandla Venkata Papaiah, son of Veeranna settled certain lands in favour of his paternal grandfather's brother's wife in the year 1350 fasli and that the said lady was in possession of the said lands in her own right. Those lands should therefore, be excluded in computing his holding. His other contention was that his father had taken Jagadeswaraiah as 'illatom' son-in-law agreeing to give a half share in those properties even during his lifetime as per the custom prevalent in Gandla community. Both the Tribunals held the unregistered settlement of 1350 fasli as well as the "illatom" agreement to be true, but refused to exclude the land given to the widow on the ground that there was no proof of her separa te possession of the land agreed to be given to the 'illatom' son-in-law and that the agreement did not contain a further stipulation that in the event of a son being born subsequently, his share would be reduced to half. Neither of these conclusion are sustainable in law. If the factum of settlement is true and the property was given towards the maintenance of the widow of a member of the coparcenary, merely because the property so given is managed by the surviving coparcener, that land does not become the land of the coparcenary. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gundlapalli Mohan Rao and others v. Gundlapalli Satyanarayana and Others, "property belonging exclusively to a female member would also be normally managed by the manager of the family. Even if it is true that the third defendant's mother did not take part in the management, it would not materially affect the rights or interests of the first defendant's wife as indisputably, the property belonged to her." The finding of both the Courts below is that the settlement of 1350 fasli is true. Hence merely because widow's separate possession is proved, that land cannot be included in the holding of the other coparceners. The land was given to her towards her maintenance and so long as she is alive, she is entitled to the said property and any pers on managing that property cannot be deemed to be holding the land in any of the capacities mentioned in section 3 (i) of the Act. The land belongs to the widow and as it was given towards her maintenance she would be deemed to be holding the land even if the management were to be vested with the other members of the coparcenary. The land given to the petitioner's paternal grandfather's wife under the settlement deed, dated 25th Bahaman of 1350 fasli shall, therefore, be excluded in computing the holding of the petitioner's family unit.

(2.) Even as per the finding of both the Tribunals, Jagadeswaraiah was brought as s an 'illatom' son-in-law with a specific agreement to give a half share in the petitioner's family. No doubt, the agreement also contains a further stipulation that in the event of a son being subsequently born, he would take a share equal to that of the natural son. The Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the findings on record, found that as per the custom even during the lifetime of the father-in-law, the 'illatom' son-in-law would get a half share, but it held that in view of the further stipulation providing for the contingency of a son being born subsequently, that right of a half share is lost. That is neither warranted by the terms of the 'illatom' agreement nor by any provision of law. Moreover, that question could not arise for consideration because it is nobody's case that the contingency had occurred, viz., that a son was born to the father-in-law who had taken Jagadeswaraiah as an 'illatom' son-in-law. The half share in the properties agreed to be given to the 'illatom' son-in-law has therefore to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. The finding of both the Tribunals in this behalf is, therefore set aside.

(3.) In the result, the civil revision petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Revision allowed.