LexG. NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
G. NARAYANAPPA AND ANOTHER
'
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
OCTOBER 22, 1991
B
[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
C
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
D regarded as a major son-Reasons indicated.
E
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.
F
In the inquiry held Appellant No. 2 deposed that appellant No. 1 was
G
H
entitled to a half share 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 of ceiling limit.
The appellants preferred an .appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate
514
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
A
the common judgment of the High Court. .
B
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.
c
-{
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The institution of illatom adoption, that is, affiliating a
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
D
E
a natural son born after the adoption of the illatom son-in-law, his rights
F
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
G
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
H
516
1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A
4. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act
---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
B 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 ChExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.