Holding

Section 29‑A does not impact the fixation of ceiling area; only major sons are eligible for the benefit of Section 4(A) and unmarried major daughters are not included in the definition of "family unit".

Summary

The father of the appellants filed declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which resulted in the family being allotted one standard holding and the excess land being declared surplus. After the father's death, the daughters invoked Section 29‑A of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, claiming that, as coparceners, they should be treated like major sons for the purpose of computing the ceiling and thus be entitled to the benefit of Section 4(A) of the ceiling Act. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that Section 29‑A does not affect ceiling computation and that unmarried major daughters are not part of the "family unit" defined in Section 3(1) of the ceiling Act. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the benefit of Section 4(A) is limited to major sons and that the amendment does not alter the ceiling calculation, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether Section 29‑A of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, alters the definition of "family unit" for the purpose of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
Whether unmarried major daughters are entitled to the benefit of Section 4(A) of the ceiling Act.
Whether the exclusion of daughters from the ceiling benefit violates the principle of equality.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973s. 10, s. 3(1), s. 4, s. 4(A), s. 9

Subjects

land ceilingagricultural holdingsHindu successioncoparcenary rightsgender equalityfamily unit definitionSection 4(A)Section 29-Aagrarian reform

Judgment

A B. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY (D) BY LRS.
v.
STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

B
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
ofs.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
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.

H 870
B.C.REDDYv. STATE 871
Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
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
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 legislation on agrarian reforms. (876-E, Fl
.
·-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7263of1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 2. 12. I 99 I of the Andhra High
Court in C.R.P. No. 7171/79 and C.M.P. Nos. 10071, 10072, 10353of1991. H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A M.N. Rao, Mrs. K. Radha and K. Maruthi Rao for the Appellants.

T. V. Ratnam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered :by .,....

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The father of the appellant nos. 2,4 & 5 to
B 7, late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy, the husband of appellant no. 3, filed two
separate declarations under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings), Act, 1973. By Order dated 23.1.1977, the Tribunal held
that family of late B. Chandrashekhar Reddy was entitled to hold one standard
holding under the Act and the excess of 4.3360 standard holdings was held
C to be surplus land. Aggrieved by this Order, an appeal was preferred before
the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as LRA No. 1107177 which was partly
allowed. Aggrieved by this Order, a revision petition C.R.P. No. 7171179 was
filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, during the pendency
of the Revision, B. Chandrashekhar Reddy died and his LRs were impleaded.
Pending this Revision application, there was a State amendment to Section
D 29 of the Hindu Succession Act whereby Section 29A was inserted. The
appellants contended that they were e:ititled to the benefit of Section 29-A
and thus an additional ground was sought to be raised in the Revision
Petition. The High Court permitted them to urge the additional ground. However,
the pleas raised by them were not allowed by the High Court and aggrieved
E by the same, the present appeal is filed.

We heard the appellants' Counsel and the Counsel for the State. The
learned Senior Couuse1, Shri M.N. Ra~ urged before us that by virtue of
Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters of a Hindu joint
family acquired rights as a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family and thus they
F have got right by birth; hence, they are to be treated on the same footing as
major sons and it was argued that the ceiling on land should have been fixed
treating them as additional members of the family. However, the High Court
rejected the plea of the appellants and held that the amendment to Section
29 of the Hindu Succession Act will not alter.the position and the appellants
herein are not entitled to get any additional share.
G
In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants, we have to
consider the definition of the term 'family unit' which is defined in Section
-.
3(1) in the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973,
which is as follows:-
H "3(f)'family unit' means -
B.C. REDDY v. STATE[BALAKRISHNAN,J.] 873
(i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses such A
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;
(iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who B
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 spouse are both dead, their minor
sons and unmarried minor daughters."
c
As per Section 3(f), the 'family unit' takes into consideration, for the
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'.

'Ceiling Area' is prescribed under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 along D
• with explanation reads as follows:-

"(I) The ceiling area in the case of family unit consisting of not more
than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard
holding.
E
(2) 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.
F
(3) The ceiling area in the case of every individual who is not a
member of a family unit, and in the case of any other person shall
be an extent of land equal to one standard holding
Explanation:- In the case of a family unit, the ceiling area shall
be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by all the members G
. of the family unit."
Section 4(A) is an additional benefit conferred on major sons. Section
4(A) reads as follows:-

"4. A Increase of ceiling area in certain cases:-
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 3 S.C.R.

A Notwithstanding anything in Section 4, where an individual or an
individual who is a member of a family unit, has one or more major
sons any such major son either by himself or together with other
members of the family unit of which he is a member, holds no land or
holds an extent of land less than the ceiling area, then, the ceiling
area, in the case of the said individual or the family unit of which the
B said individual is a member computed in accordance with Section 4,
shall be increased in respect of each such major son by an extent of
land equal to the ceiling area applicable to such major son or the
family unit of which he is a member, or as the case may be, by the
extent of land by which the land held by such major son or the family
c unit of which he is a member falls short of the ceiling area."

Benefit of Section 4(A) is given only to persons who are major sons as
on the date of commencement of the Act. In the definition of the 'family unit',
the major sons are not included. If on computation of the ceiling area of an
individual or a family unit in accordance with Section 4 the individual or family
D unit holds in excess of the ceiling area, to which it is entitled, that entire extent
would be determined as excess under Section 9 of the Act and the excess
would have to be surrendered as laid down under Section I0 of the Act. But,
in case of an individual, who is a member of family unit has one or more major
sons and any such major son either by himself or together with the members
of the family unit of which he is a member holds an extent of land less than
E the ceiling area of the individual or of the family unit which he is a member
has to be increased as laid down under Section 4-A. If an individual or major
son holds an extent which falls short of the ceiling area, that deficit would
be added to the said individual or the individual who is a member of the
family. If there is more than one major son, the extent by which the holding
F of each of his major sons falls short ofthe ceiling area, would be added to
the holding of said individual.

The argument of the appellant's Counsel is that the same benefit should
be extended to the major unmarried daughters. It is submitted that as on the
date of the commencement of the Act, appellants 6 and 7 were major unmarried
G daughters staying with the declarant. Appellant no. 6 got married on 29.8.1986
and the appellant no. 7 remained unmarried. The contention of the appellants'
Counse.l is that Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act being applicable
.
to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the daughters are to be treated as members
of the co-parcenery and they are entitled to equal shares as sons. In that view
H of the matter, they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4-A of the Act. Section
i
B.C. REDDY v. STATE[BALAKRISHNAN,J.] 875
29-A of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:- A
"Sec. 29-A -Equal rights to daughter in coparcenery property:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 6 of the Act:-

(i) In a joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara Law, the daughter
of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own B
right in the same manner as a son had have the same rights in the
coparcenery 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 in respect thereto as
the son
c
(ii) At 'I partition in such a Joint Hindu Family the coparcenery
property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same
share as is allotable to a son;

Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased
daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive D
at the time of the partition shall be a!lotted to the surviving child of
such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter;

Provided further that the share allotable to the pre-deceased child or
a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of E
such pre-deceased child of such pre-deceased daughter as the case
may be.

(iii) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue
of the provisions of clause ( i ) shall be held by her with the F
incidents of coparcenery ownership and shall be regarded,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law
for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed
of by her by will or other testimentary disposition;

(iv) nothing in this Chapter shall apply to a daughter married before G
the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (A.P.
Amendment) Act, 1989;

(v) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a partition which had been
effected before the date of the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (A.P. Amendment) Act, 1989."
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A The provisos to sub-Section (iv) & (v) of Section 29(A) are important
in the sense that it is specifically mentioned that the benefit of Section 29(A)
can be invoked only by major daughters if they are not married prior to the
commencement of Section 29(A) of the Act. The said provision came into
effect from 15.5.1986. Appellant No. 4 and 5 married prior to 15.5.1986. The
B sixth appellant was married on 29.8.1986, i.e., after the commencement of
Section 29(A). Appellants 6 and 7 were minor daughters as on 1.1. 75, the date
of the commencement of the Act. Appellant No. 6, Kumudini Devi was born
on 1.5.1962 and the appellant no. 7 Sridevi was born on 2.3.1971. Appellants
4 & 5 and 6 were major daughters and they were married at the time of
commencement of the Ceiling Act and appellant nos. 6 and 7 were minors on
C that date, and were unmarried. They were treated as members of the family
and the declarant must have derived benefit of such fixation of the ceiling.
So, in any view of the matter, Section 29-A has no impact on the fixation of
the ceiling as far as these appellants are concerned. It is true that by Section
29(A) of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters acquired a right by birth
D as they were deemed to be treated as co-parceners of the joint family and they
have got a right to seek partition of the joint family property but as regards
the fixation of the ceiling, in the instant case, Section 29(A) does not confer
any additional benefit to the appellant nos. 6 and 7.

The learned Senior Counsel, Shri M.N. Rao contended that if major
E unmarried daughters are not treated as the members of the family unit and
there is denial of justice to daughters, vis-a-vis sons, there is clear violation
of principles of equality and there is discrimination between unmarried major
daughters on the one hand, and the IT)ajor sons and minor children on the
other hand, in the matter of fixation of ceiling area under A.P. Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The appellants have not
F challenged any of the provisions of the Act and it would not be proper to
look into the plea of discrimination at this stage, especially in relation to a
legislation on agrarian reforms. We do not, therefore, propose to go into the
constitutional validity of any of these provisions.

G The appeal is without any merits and the same is dismissed, however,
without costs.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.