G. NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 514

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL, M. FATHIMA BEEVI

Case summary

The Land Reforms Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the declarant, appellant No.

Judgment text

G. NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER ' v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH OCTOBER 22, 1991 [M,H. KANIA, N. M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEE\1, JJ. ] Hindu Law-II/atom adoption-Existence in the Reddi caste in Andhra-Creature of custom--Judicial recognition of Hindu Law-l/laton~ adoption-II/atom son-in-law when. entitled to a share in father-in··law's property-lllatom son-in-law and natural son/adopted son-Distinction. Andhra Pradesh Land Refonns (Ceiling 011 Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973-;Section 4A-Legislativc intention-1/latom son-ill-law not be regarded as a major son-Reasons indicated. The appellants, who belonged to the Reddi caste in an area of Andhra Pradesh, which originally formed part of the Madras. Presidency filed their respective declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Appellant No. 2 in his declaration claimed an increase in the ceiling unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant No.

1, as his illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority, had a share in the properties. In the inquiry held Appellant No. 2 deposed that appellant No. 1 was entitled to a halfshare in bis properties as his illatom son-in-law. Botb the appellants claimed that appellant No. 1 was entitled to a share under ~n agreement. The Land Reforms Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the declarant, appellant No. 2 held surplus holding and directed him to surrender the excess land. Appellant No. 1 was declared as not holding any land in excess ofceiling limit. The appellants preferred an . appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate NARAYANAPPAv. GOVf. OFA. P. 515 Tribunal, which was dismissed. The appellants filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. This appeal by ! l'"J>ecial leave is one of the appeals directed against the common judgment of the High Court. . The appellants contended that appellant No.

1 as an illato~ son- -~ in-law of appellant No. 2, was entitled ll> a half share ! n the property of appellant No. 2; that an illatom son-in-law who had attained the age of majority was in the same position as a major son and hence, the ceiling area permitted to appellant No. 2 was liable to be increased by one ceiling unit as appellant No. 1 did not hold any land independently nor in. any manner specified under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. The institution of illatom adoption, that is, affiliating son-in-law and giving him a share, is purelJ a creature of custom and judicial recognition has been given to it. It prevails among the Reddi and Kamma castes in territories which earlier formed part of the then Madras Presidency. (518 G, 517 F] 2. An illatom son-in-law becomes entitled to a share in the property of his father-in-law as his heir, that is, on his death. (521 CJ 3.

Although an illatom son-in-law has some rights similar to those of a natural son born after the adoption of the illatom son-in-law, his rights are not identical to those of conferNd by law on a son or an adt},Jted son. The illatom son-in-law does not succeed to the properties of his father-in-law by survivorship, but only on account of custom or an agreement giving him a share in the property of his father-in-law. His position is not identical to that of an adopted son because he does not lose his rights in his natural family on being taken as an illa~om son-in- law -{ and continues to be entitled to a share in the property of his natura! father. It is not possible to equate an illatom son-in-law who has attained majority with a major son for the purposes of Section 4A of' the Ceiling Act. (520 F-G, 521 EJ 4.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act ·We ~ ---whereby Section 4A was inserted into the Ceiling Aet indicate that an illatom son-in-law, who does not lose his rights in his own family, cannot be regarded as a major son of his father-in-law for tbe purposes of the Ceiling Act. Ifhe was so regarded, there would be a double benefit, because of his presence as the ceiling area of his father-in-law would be increased as well as the ceiling area of bis natural father. That eertainly could not have been the intention behind the amendment. Since there is no custom of having an illatom among Muslims and Christians such a construction ). --.. would lead to disp.. rity between the position of Muslims and Christian's on the one hand and Hindus on the other. That would be contrary to the very purpose for which the amendment was made. [522A~C] Nalluri Kristnamma and another v. Kamepalli Venkatasubbayya and others, (1918-19) L. R. 46 I. A. 168; Hanumantamma '\I.

Rami Reddi, (1882) L. R. 4 I. A. Madras Series 272; Narasayya and others v. Ramacliandrayya and others, AIR . Cl956] 4~ A. P. 209. ;~enumatsa Koti RamachamJra Raju v. State ofA. P. (1980) 1 (H. C. ) Andhra Pradesh LawJournal~. reft:rred to. ,. ¥.. ... Peec/i Ramaiah v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh, (1976) 2 (H. C. ) Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 278, distinguished. Mayne: Hindu Law and Usages, 13th Edition, Chapter VII, 'Paragraph 242, N. R. Raghavachariar, Hindu Law 8th Edition, Paragraph 176; Molla: Hindu Law, 16th Edition, Para_515, Page 534,.. J:"eferred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3850 of 1991. ~- From the Judgment and Order dated. 21. 4. 1978 of the Andhra Pra ORTS (1991] SUPP. l S. C. R. be Omited to the extent by which the land holding of the major son and his family unit fell short of the ceiling unit.

In our opinion, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said amending Act whereby Section 4A was inserted into the said Act lends support to the view that we are tak\ng, that an illatom son-in-law, who does not lose his rights in his own family, cannot be regarded as a major son of his father-in-faw for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. If he wa. s so regarded, there would be a double benefit, in the sense that because of his presence the ceiling area of his father-in-law would be increased as well as the ceiling area of his natural father and that certianly could not have been the intention behind the amendment insert· ing Section 4A. Since there is no custom of having an illatom among Muslims and Christians such a construction would lead to disparity between the position of Muslims and Christians on the one hand and Hindus on the other. That would be contrary to the very purpose for which the amendment was made.

In the result, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and it must fail. Appeal dismissed. However, looking to the factf and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. V. P. R Appeal dismissed.