G. Valli Alias Rayaprolu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
family - coparcenary property - section 29a of hindu succession act, 1956 and andhra pradesh hindu succession (amendment) act, 1986 - respondent declared as surplus holder - revision petition filed by major daughters claiming their share of property - entitlement claimed by virtue of amendment brought to hindu succession act in 1986 - benefit can be claimed only if petitioners had attained majority on date when act came into force - petitioners were unmarried minor daughters on relevant date - benefit of amendment not available to revision petitioners. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. orderg. yethirajulu, j.1. these two revision petitions i.e. c.r.p. nos. 405 and 406 of 1995 are filed by the major daughters of the declarant against the order of the land reforms appellate tribunal, west godavari at eluru in l.r.a. nos. 98 and 96 of 1994 respectively. the second respondent is the declarant. he was declared as a surplus holder. his daughters valli and saroja contended that by virtue of the amendment brought to hindu succession act in the year 1986, they are entitled for share in the property of the declarant on par with the sons, and if their shares are excluded, the declarant becomes a non surplus holder. therefore, they requested to exclude their shares from the holding of the declarant. the plea of the revision petitioners was not accepted by the appellate tribunal. they preferred these revision petitions questioning the validity and legality of the said order. since both the revision petitions are against a common order passed by the tribunal and are in respect of the same properties relating to the declarant, both the revision petitions are clubbed together and this common order is passed.2. the revision petitioners contended that smt. valli was born on 1-5-1959 and her marriage was performed on 7-10-1987. smt. saroja was born on 30-11-1961 and her marriage was performed on 6-3-1988.the amendment to the hindu succession act, 1956 came into force on 5-9-1985, therefore they are entitled to equal shares along with their brothers and father. they requested to exclude 1/4th share of each of them from the holding of the declarant.3. the andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agricultural holdings) act, 1973 (for short 'the act') came into force on 1-1-1975. section 4 clause 2 of the act reads as follows :--'the ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding plus an additional extent of one fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, so however, that the ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings.'4. a family unit consisting of five members is entitled to one standard holding and every member in excess of five is entitled to possess 1/5th of the standard holding in excess of one standard holding. however, the total ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings.5. section 4 of the act provides for fixing the ceiling area with reference to the family unit consisting of the declarant, his wife and minor children. section 3(f) of the act reads as follows :--'family unit' means-- (i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses such individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any.(ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters'.(ii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not, and(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters. explanation : where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring if any, shall be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor is a member.6. major unmarried daughters are not included in the family unit as defined under section 3(f) of the hindu succession act. but they can be regarded as individuals. in these cases, the revision petitioners were minor as on 1-1-1975.7. it was represented by the learned government pleader for land reforms that though the revision petitioners remained unmarried by the date of the amendment to the hindu succession act came into force, they were minors as on 1-1-1975 and therefore, they cannot be treated as the person entitled for separate holding under the act. in kum. addalagadda alivelamma v. special tahasildar, land reforms (1987) 2 aplj (hc) 192 a learned single judge of his court while relying on section 29a of the hindu succession act observed that 'the daughters are entitled to claim shares in the joint family property on par with the brothers.' section 29a of the hindu succession act reads thus :--'equal rights of daughters in coparcenary property notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this act :-- (i) in a joint hindu family governed by mitakshara law, the daughter of a comparcenery shall by birth become a coparcenery in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship, and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities as the son;(ii) at a partition in such a joint hindu family, the coparcenery property shall be so divided as to allot to the daughter the same share as is allottable to a son. 8. in order to claim the said benefit they have to show that they were neither married prior to the amendment of the act nor a partition prior to the act.9. the revision petitioners were unmarried minor daughters by the date of the act came into force. therefore, they were included in the family unit. had they been majors by 1-1-1975 they would have been entitled for the benefit under the amendment act by getting a share in the joint family property on par with their brothers. they are entitled for share in the family holding, subject to the government taking possession of the excess land from the lands of the family, but as the revision petitioners are admittedly minors as on 1-1-1975, they cannot claim any benefit under section 29a of the hindu succession act, 1956.10. in the light of the above circumstances, the plea of the revision petitioners that their shares are liable to be excluded from the holding of the declarant cannot be accepted. there is no grounds to interfere with the order of the tribunal.11. the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

G. Yethirajulu, J.

1. These two Revision Petitions i.e. C.R.P. Nos. 405 and 406 of 1995 are filed by the major daughters of the declarant against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru in L.R.A. Nos. 98 and 96 of 1994 respectively. The second respondent is the declarant. He was declared as a surplus holder. His daughters Valli and Saroja contended that by virtue of the amendment brought to Hindu Succession Act in the year 1986, they are entitled for share in the property of the declarant on par with the sons, and if their shares are excluded, the declarant becomes a non surplus holder. Therefore, they requested to exclude their shares from the holding of the declarant. The plea of the revision petitioners was not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. They preferred these revision petitions questioning the validity and legality of the said order. Since both the revision petitions are against a common order passed by the Tribunal and are in respect of the same properties relating to the declarant, both the revision petitions are clubbed together and this common order is passed.

2. The revision petitioners contended that Smt. Valli was born on 1-5-1959 and her marriage was performed on 7-10-1987. Smt. Saroja was born on 30-11-1961 and her marriage was performed on 6-3-1988.

The Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 5-9-1985, therefore they are entitled to equal shares along with their brothers and father. They requested to exclude 1/4th share of each of them from the holding of the declarant.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') came into force on 1-1-1975. Section 4 Clause 2 of the Act reads as follows :--

'The ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding plus an additional extent of one fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, so however, that the ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings.'

4. A family unit consisting of five members is entitled to one standard holding and every member in excess of five is entitled to possess 1/5th of the standard holding in excess of one standard holding. However, the total ceiling area shall not exceed two standard holdings.

5. Section 4 of the Act provides for fixing the ceiling area with reference to the family unit consisting of the declarant, his wife and minor children. Section 3(f) of the Act reads as follows :--

'Family unit' means--

(i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses such individual, the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any.

(ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters'.

(ii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not, and

(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters.

Explanation : Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring if any, shall be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor is a member.

6. Major unmarried daughters are not included in the family unit as defined under Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act. but they can be regarded as individuals. In these cases, the revision petitioners were minor as on 1-1-1975.

7. It was represented by the learned Government Pleader for Land Reforms that though the revision petitioners remained unmarried by the date of the Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act came into force, they were minors as on 1-1-1975 and therefore, they cannot be treated as the person entitled for separate holding under the Act. In Kum. Addalagadda Alivelamma v. Special Tahasildar, Land Reforms (1987) 2 APLJ (HC) 192 a learned single Judge of his Court while relying on Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act observed that 'the daughters are entitled to claim shares in the joint family property on par with the brothers.' Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act reads thus :--

'Equal rights of daughters in coparcenary property notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 of this Act :--

(i) In a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a comparcenery shall by birth become a coparcenery in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship, and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities as the son;

(ii) At a partition in such a joint Hindu family, the coparcenery property shall be so divided as to allot to the daughter the same share as is allottable to a son.

8. In order to claim the said benefit they have to show that they were neither married prior to the amendment of the Act nor a partition prior to the Act.

9. The revision petitioners were unmarried minor daughters by the date of the Act came into force. Therefore, they were included in the family unit. Had they been majors by 1-1-1975 they would have been entitled for the benefit under the amendment Act by getting a share in the joint Family property on par with their brothers. They are entitled for share in the family holding, subject to the Government taking possession of the excess land from the lands of the family, but as the revision petitioners are admittedly minors as on 1-1-1975, they cannot claim any benefit under Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

10. In the light of the above circumstances, the plea of the revision petitioners that their shares are liable to be excluded from the holding of the declarant cannot be accepted. There is no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

11. The Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.