SAKHAMURI VENKATA RATTAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but rather complex question is whether on the demise of the declarant, a life estate holder, after filing the declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 the life estate held by the declarant, will devolve on the vested remainder holder immediately and if so whether the said extent shall stand excluded from the declarant's holding.

(2.) The provision in this regard is enacted under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act, which reads:-

(3.) Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case where the life estate holder files a declaration and on determination if any excess is determined the said life estate holder will be entitled to surrender the extent of the life .estate vis-a- vis the surplus in favour of the vested remainder holder, as per the decision of this Court in M. Chittamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) (1976 (II) An. W.R. 384). If that is so, it is much more in case where the life estate holder having filed the declaration dies immediately thereafter and in consequence thereof the vested remainder will devolve on vested remainder holder or at any rate that would be deemed to have passed on to the vested remainder holder. Consequently it would be not only anamalous, but would lead to incongruous results, if the extent allowed to be included within the declarant's holding. The vested remainder, on the demise of the life estate holder in July, 1975, having passed on to the vested remainder holder will have to be necessarily shown and included in the holdingof the vested remainder holder. If that is so, the same land cannot be allowed to reflect for the purpose of determination of the holding in two holdings. There is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel. Though the situation as it obtains in this case is not explicitly contemplated by the legislature, but on an interpreatation of sub-section (4) of Sec. 12 it is irresistible to Infer that on the demise of the estate holder the property necessarily devolves on the vested remainder holder and the same has to be included in his holding. If that is so, the same would have to be excluded from the computation of the holding of the life estate holder. The words "any land is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by any limited owner the possession of such land shall revert to the owner" occuring in sub-section (4) of section 1 i on construction will mean that the property on the demise of the estate holder would have vested in the vested reminder holder and therefore the possession would be with the vested remainder holder. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the extent of Acs. 10-95 cents, over which the deceased declarant had only a life estate,would stand vested in the vested remainder holder and therefore the same shall stand excluded from the computation of the petitioner's holding.