B. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY (D) BY LRS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 23-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
B. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
APRIL 23, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDl,JJ.] 
A.P. land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act,1973: Ss. 
3(j) and 4A-Ceiling area-Computation of-Appellant-daughters of 
C declarant, claiming exclusion of land on par with major sons, on the ground 
of s.29-A of Hindu Succession Act (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986-
Held, s.29-A of Hindu Succession Act has no impact on fixation of ceiling 
as far as appellants are concerned-Unmarried major daughters are not 
included in the definition of 'family unit '-Benefit of s.4-A is given only to 
major sons as on date of commencement of Ceiling Act-Hindu Succession 
D (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986-S.29-A. 
Certain land of the original tenure-holder, namely, the father of 
appellants 2,4 and 5 to 7 and husband of appellant 3, was declared surplus 
under the A.P. and Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973; 
and the family was found entitled to one standard holding. The appeal filed by 
E the original tenure holder was partly allowed against which a revision petition 
was filed before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision petition 
the original tenure holder died. Meanwhile, by the Hindu Succession (Andhra 
Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, s.29-A was inserted therein, with effect from 
15.5.1986, conferring right in coparcenery property on daughters also. The 
F appellants contended before the High Court that in view of section 29-A of the 
Hindu Succession Act, the daughters acquired right by birth as a coparcener 
in a joint Hindu family, and like major sons the major daughters were to be 
treated as additional members of the family while computing the ceiling area. 
The High Court rejected the plea. Aggrieved, the children and wife of the 
original tenure holder filed the present appeal. 
G 
H 
It was contended for the appellants that in view of s.29-A of Hindu 
Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, the daughters having been 
treated as members of coparcenery, they were entitled to equal shares as sons 
and, therefore, they were entitled to benefit of s.4-A of the Ceiling Act. 
870 
-
.. • 
-
·-. 
B.C.REDDYv. STATE 
871 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that by Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession 
(Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1986, the daughters acquired a right by 
birth as they were deemed to be .treated as co-parceners o( the joint family and 
they have got a right to seek partition of the joint family prl!perty but as regards 
A 
the fixation of the ceiling, in the instant case, Section 29-A does not confer B 
any additional benefit to the daughters of the declarant. (~76-DI 
1.2. In view of the provisions of sub-sections (iv) and (v) of s.29-A of Hindu 
.Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, the benefit of s. 29-A can be 
invoked only by major daughters if they are not married prior to the 
commencement ofs. 29-A. The said provision came into effect from 15.5.1986. C 
Appellants 4 and 5 were married prior to 15.5.1986. They were major 
daughters and were married even as on 1.1.1975, the date of commencement 
of the Ceiling Act. Appellants 6 and 7 were minor daughters and were 
unmarried as on the date of commencement of the Ceiling Act. They were 
treated as members of the family and the declarant must have derived benefit D 
of such fixation of the ceiling. So in any view of the matter, s.29-A has no impact 
on the fixation of the ceiling as far as these appellants are concerned. 
(876-A-DI 
2. As per Section 3(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural 
Holdings) Aci, 1973 the term 'family unit'"takes into consideration, for the E 
purpose of the Act, an individual or his or her spouse and their minor sons 
and their unmarried minor daughters. Unmarried major daughters are not 
included in the definition of the 'family unit'. Further, benefit of Section 4(A) 
is given only to persons who are major sons as on the date of commencement 
of the Act. (873-D; 874-D( 
F 
3. The contention that if major unmarried daughters are not treated as 
the members of the family unit there would be denial of justice to daughters 
vis-a-vis sons and a clear violation of principle of equality, cannot be entertained 
since the appellants have not challenged any of the provisions of the Ceiling 
Act, and it would not be proper to look into the plea of discrimination at this G 
stage, especially in relation to a l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.