Holding

An occupancy right granted in the name of the manager of a joint family under the Abolition of Inams Act benefits the entire family, is partible, and does not oust the civil court's jurisdiction in a partition suit, but the specific jurisdictional question must be examined by a larger Bench.

Summary

The case concerned a partition suit filed by members of a joint family over lands where the first respondent had been granted occupancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The respondents argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the Act ousted its jurisdiction, while the appellants contended that the occupancy right was a trust for the whole family and thus partible. The Supreme Court held that an occupancy right granted in the name of the family manager benefits the entire family and is therefore partible, and that the right to property is a constitutional human right that cannot be divested except in accordance with law. It emphasized that provisions ousting court jurisdiction must be strictly construed and that the Act does not intend to deprive co‑sharers of their rights. The Court concluded that the question of civil court jurisdiction required consideration by a larger Bench and referred the matter accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a partition suit when occupancy rights have been granted to a co‑sharer under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
Whether the occupancy right granted in the name of the manager of a joint family enures to the entire family and is therefore partible.
Whether the provisions of the Abolition of Inams Act oust the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes among co‑sharers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 300A
Hindu Succession Act

Subjects

partition suitcivil court jurisdictionoccupancy rightinams abolitionco‑sharer rightsproperty lawconstitutional rightArticle 300AHindu Succession Actstatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2008) 9 S.C.R. 535
..._.
N. PADMAMMA AND OTHERS A
v.
S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 2008)
MAY-16, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
•• Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain parti-
tion suit - In respect of property, the occupancy right whereof
had been granted under Abolition of lnams Act in favour of c
one of the members of joint family- Held: When the occu-
pancy right is granted in the name of the manager of the joint
family, it enures to the benefit of entire family and hence is
partible - Right to property being a human as well as constitu-
tional right cannot be taken away except in accordance with
D
~ law - The Act contemplates only divesting of rights of an
lnamdar and does not contemplate cessation of a right of a
co-sharer - The right has to be determined having regard to
the possession - Possession of one sharer would be deemed
to be possession of others - Where civil court's jurisdiction is
expressly ousted by a statute, it must mean that the same is E
confined to the matters covered thereby or connected there-
with -Right of succession cannot be taken away except in terms

. ,. of another statute which has overriding effect; is a complete
code; is a later statute; and contains non-obstante clause -
The occupancy right having been given w.e.f. 1955 and the F
Succession Act having come into force w.e.f 1956 the status
of the owner of the property in 1955 is relevant - Matter re-
ferred to larger Bench for determination of the question in is-
sue - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams
Act, 1955 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Constitution of In- G
dia, 1950 - Articles 14 and 300 A.
Interpretation of statutes - Statutory provision ousting ju-
risdiction of another court- Interpretation of- Held: Such pro-
535 H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

).>
.
A vision must receive strict construction.
Words and Phrases - 'Persons' and 'possession' - Mean-
ing of in the context of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abo-
titian of lnams Act, 1955.

B Respondent No.1, son of the owner of the property
in dispute was given occupancy rights in respect of the
property' in terms of provisions of Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, during the
life time of his father. After the death of his father, some of
c the members of the joint family (appellants) filed a suit for
partition.
The question for consideration in the appeal was that
whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a Suit
for partition for division of respective shares amongst the
D members of a joint family, when in respect of some of the
.
lands, occupancy rights had been granted in favour of )--
one of them in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
E HELD: The properties were in possession of the
owner thereof despite the vesting of the land in favour of
respondent No. 1. Upon his death the parties hereto in-
herited his right title and interest in the properties. Re-
spondent No.1 being the only male member, assuming
F he had been cultivating the said land, must be held to have
~
.
been doing so for and on behalf of the members of the
joint family. [Para 10] [543-D;E]
1.2 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) abolition of
lnams act, 1955 did not intend to deprive a co-sharer of
G his right to which he or she was otherwise entitled to. The
word 'person' cannot be given a limited meaning. It may
...,..
be a body of persons or association of person. When an
occupancy right is granted in the name of the Manager of
the joint family it would enure for the benefit of the entire
H family. The lands vested in the State. But as soon as the
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 537
REDDY & ORS.
, "f occupancy right is granted, in the event it is held that the A
same enured to the benefit of the entire family, it becomes
partible. Occupancy right in favour of the first respondent
has been granted on 24th October, 1978. In terms of Sec-
tion 8 of the Act the same would be deemed to have been
granted on or from 20th July, 1955. The provisions, there- B
fore, are required to be assigned proper and effective
meaning. [Para 11] [543-F,G, 544-A]
1.3 The right of property is a human right. The Act
contemplates divesting of right of an lnamdar. It does not
contemplate cessation of a right of a co-sharer or recog- c
nition of a right in favour of other co-sharer. The right has
to be determined having regard to the possession by way
of personal cultivation. The word 'possession' in such
cases should be given a broader connotation. Posses-
sion of one sharer would be deemed to be the posses- D
sion of others. It is a legal concept. This legal concept
cannot be held to have been done away with under the
Act. If a right of property is a human right as also a consti-
tutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution pro- E
tects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to di-
vest such right, keeping in view the provisions of Article
300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly con-
strued. [Para 17] [547-D,E,F,G]
,;. ~
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur F
Chenai, 2005 (7) sec 627 - relied on.
1.4 Right of inheritance and succession is a statu-
tory right. A right in a property which is vested in terms of
the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be
G
taken away, except in terms of provisions of another stat-
ute, which would have an overriding effect. Such special
statute should be a complete code. It shall ordinarily be a
later statute. Ordinarily again it must contain a non-ob-
stante clause. Law of Primogeniture is no longer appli-
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A cable in India. Such a provision may be held to be uncon- ~ .
stitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para
16] [546-G, 547-A,B]
Bhe and Ors. v. Magistrate, Khayelistha and Ors.18
BHRC 52 - referred to.
B
1.5 It is assumed that the Act is a complete Code but
its operation must be limited to the purpose for which it
was enacted. It is a well settled principle of law that a pro-
vision in the statute ousting jurisdiction of the Court must
c receive strict construction. [Para 13] [545-E]
1.6 Where the civil court's jurisdiction is barred ex-
pressly it must mean that the same would be confined to
the matters covered thereby or connected therewith. The
right or the claim must be necessarily required to be dealt
D with by the authorities uncier the Act. The grievance/adju-
dicatory forum provided therein must be competent to ,...
resolve the dispute. [Para 17] [547-C,D]
1.7 In terms of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the right
of succession is determined by reason of the provisions
E
thereof. It came into force with effect from 17th June, 1956.
By reason of a legal fiction created under the Act, the oc-
cupancy right is granted with effect from 20th July, 1955.
The owner of the property was alive then. What would be
.
his s.tatus on that date would be relevant. The legal fie- ., ..
F tion as is well known must be given its full effect. [Para
18] [548-A,B]
Lokraj and Ors. vs. Kishan Lal and Ors. 1995 (3) SCC
291 - overruled.
G Shaik Sharfuddin alias Bukka Sharfuddin vs. Joint Col-
lector; R.R. District and Ors. 2003 (5) A.LT. 108 - relied on.
..,,.
Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheswar
Mukherjee, 1971 (1) SCC 556 - held inapplicable.

H CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3632
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 539
REDDY & ORS.
'
_....__ -;-
of 2008 A

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in LP.A.
No. 3of1993
TL. Vishwanatha Iyer, T.G.N. Nair, Rahul Shukla and R.V. B
Kameshwaran for the Appellants.

Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, G. Ramakrishna Reddy (for D. Bharathi
Reddy) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit
for partition for division of respective shares amongst the mem-
bers of a joint family, when in respect of some of the lands, oc- D
cupancy right has been granted in favour of one of them in terms
of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abo-
lition of lnams Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is the question in-
volved herein.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute E
4. One S. Ramakrishna Reddy was the owner of the prop-
erties. He had two sons, S. Ramachandra Reddy and S.
Anantharam Reddy. S. Ramachandra Reddy died in the year
1968. He had two wives. Plaintiffs-Appellants are the first wife
"'~ F
and the daughter of S. Ramachandra Reddy. The Defendants-
Respondents are the son, second wife and the daughter of said
S. Ramachandra Reddy.
5. The Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted
the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, G
1955 which came into force on 201h July, 1955. In the year 1973,
-"r Section 8 was enacted in terms whereof a person in posses-
sion could be registered as an occupant of the jand from the date
of vesting thereof. The first respondent was granted occupancy
right by the R.D.O., Hyderabad in terms of Section 8 read with
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A Section 10 of the Act. A suit for partition was filed on 3m Septem-
ber, 1981. Some other persons claiming right as 'lnamdars' filed
an application before the District Collector under Section 24 of the
Act. However, the right of respondent No.1 thereoverwas found by
the District Collector in terms of an order dated 5th August, 1985. A
s preliminary issue was raised as regards the jurisdiction of the court
which has been upheld by the impugned judgment.
6. Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel appear-
ing for the appellants, would submit that the decisions of the
courts below is based upon the decision of this Court in Lokraj
C and others vs. Kishan Lal and others, [(1995) 3 SCC 291 ],
which cannot be said to have been correctly decided. Learned
counsel pointed out that this Court in Bhubaneshwar Prasad
Narain Singh v. Sidheswar Mukherjee, [ (1971) 1 SCC 556]
upheld the right of a co-sharer and recognized such right in the
D entire body of the co-sharers.
7. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents on the other hand, would submit that
the said Act is a complete Code itself. The contention of the ap-
pellants that the registration of the land should not be granted in
E favour of respondent No. 1 is not correct in view of the terminolo-
gies used in Section 8 of the Act. It was contended that having
regard to the provisions of Section 24 as also 29 of the Act, the
civil court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of partition.
..., ..
F 8. We, at the outset, may notice therelevant provisions of
the Act.
Sections 3, 8, 10, 24 and 29 of the Act are as under:-
"Sec. 3: Abolition and vesting of imams and the
consequences thereof:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to
G
the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract,
grant sanad order or instrument, Act regulation, rules or
order having the, force of law and notwithstanding any
judgment, decree or order of a Civil or Revenue or Atiyat
Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all imams
H
,

N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 541
REDDY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
-;
shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in A
the State.
(2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions
of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting the
following consequences shall ensure, namely:
B
(a) xxxx
--.,... (b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar,
1<abiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant
and non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land,
other than the interests expressly saved by or under c
provisions of this Act and including those in all
communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands
(whether assessed or not), waste lands, pasture
lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers
and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries D
and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in
the State free from all encumbrances:
(c) to (f) xxxxxxxx
(g) the inamdar and any other person whose rights have E
vested in the State under clause (b) shall be entitled
only to compensation from the Government as
provided for in this Act;
(h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between
'~ F
the inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant,
protected tenant or non-protected tenant shall be
extinguished'
(i) xx xx
(3) xxxxxxxx G
. -'f Sec. 8: Registration of non-protected tenant as
occupant:- (1) Every non-protected tenant shall, with effect
from the date of vesting subject to Section 37 of the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such inam
lands in his possession as may be left over after the
allotment under Section 4 which, immediately before the
date of vesting. were under his personal cultivation and
which, together with any lands he separately owns and
B cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the
family holding.

(2) The non-protected tenant shall be entitled to
compensation from the Government, as provided under
this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess
c of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) whether cultivated
or not.

(3) No non-protected tenant shall be registered as an
occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he pays
to the Government as premium an amount equal to sixty-
D
times the land revenue for dry and twenty times for wet
land. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more
than ten annual instalments along with the annual land
revenue and in default of such payment, shall be
recoverable as an arrears of land revenue due on the land
E in respect of which it is payable.

Sec.10: Enquiry by Collector in certain cases: The
Collector shall examine the nature and history of all lands
in respect of which an inamdar, Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent
F tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims
to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 as the case may be, and decide-

(a) in whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands,
the claims should be allowed;
G
(b) the land revenue and the premium payable in respect
of such lands. -.;- .
Sec.24 : Appeals from orders under Section 10 to
prescribed authority:- ( 1) Any person aggrieved by a
H decision of the Collector under Section 10 may, within 30
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 543
REDDY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
::,.
'f
days from the date of decision, or such further time as the A
prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow, appeal
to the prescribed authority and its decision shall be final.

(2) If any question arises whether any building or land fails
within the scope of Section 9 the same shall be referred
to the prescribed authority whose decision shall be final. B

~- Sec. 29. Savings:- Save as otherwise provided in this
Act, no order passed by the Collector or by Special Tribunal
under this Act shall be liable to be cancelled or modified
except by the High Court as aforesaid or be questioned c
in any Court of law."

9. In terms of Section 3 of the Act all inam lands vest in the
State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 2Qth July, 1955. Occu-
pancy right as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, how-
ever, was to be granted with effect from 1st November, 1973. D
No doubt, grant of such occupancy right is hedged with condi-
lions as mentioned in Section 8 read with Section 10 of the Act;
personal cultivation and possession inter alia being the relevant
condition for grant of such right.
E
10. What would be the meaning of the 'personal cultiva-
tion' and 'possession' is the question. The properties were in
possession of S. Ramachandra Reddy despite the vesting of
the land. Upon his death the parties hereto inherited his right
• -y title and interest in the properties. Respondent No.1 being the
only male member, assuming he had been cultivating the said F
land, must be held to have been doing so for and on behalf of
the members of the joint family. There were 14 items of joint
family properties. They were living in a house. There is no dis-
pute in regard to item Nos. 7 to 14. Item Nos. 1 to 6 of the Sched-
ule of the Plaint only were the subject matter of the said Act. G
-"!" 11. The said Act did not intend to deprive a co-sharer of
his right to which he or she was otherwise entitled to. The word
'person' cannot be given a limited meaning. It may be a body of
persons or association of person. When an occupancy right is
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

... r-
A granted in the name of the Manager of the joint family it would
enure for the benefit of the entire family. The lands vested in the
State. But as soon as the occupancy right is granted, in the event
it is held that the same inured to the benefit of the entire family,
it becomes partible. Occupancy right in favour of the first re-
B spondent has been granted on 24th October, 1978. In terms of
Section 8 of the Act the same would be deemed to have been
granted on or from 2Qth July, 1955. The provisions, therefore, ~-

are required to be assigned proper and effective meaning.

12. This aspect of the matter has been considered in
c Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheswar Mukherjee,
[ (1971) 1 sec 556] wherein it was held
"9. In our view the above decision is no authority for this
broad proposition. In that case the appellants who were
mortgagees of an estate_including Bakasht lands and other
D
lands filed a suit on their mortgage and tried to follow up
the preliminary decree which was obtained before the Act
came into force by a petition for passing a final decree.
One of the questions before this Court was whether the
mortgage decree had become unexecutable in view of t
E the provisions of the Act. It was held that the net effect of
Sections 3, 4 and 6 was that although on the vesting of the
lands in the State a settlement was deemed to be effected
with the person in Khas possession in law, there were two
different transactions and the deemed settlement was in ,, ~

F effect a separate transaction creating new rights. The Court
came to the conclusion that the only remedy open to the
decree-holders was that provided in Chapter IV of the Act
i.e. a claim under Section 14 before the Claims Officer for
determining the amount of debt legally and justly payable
G to each creditor in respect of his claim.
Y··
10. The Court was there dealing with the rights of the
mortgage creditors after the Act had come into force.
Chapter IV of the Act made special provisions for dealing
with the rights of secured creditors and Section 4(1 )(d)
H
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 545
REDDY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
,.. ';-
expressly provided for the abatement of all suits and A
proceedings for the recovery of any money through
proceedings which might be pending on the date of vesting
arising out of securities created by mortgage or a charge
on an estate or tenure. Here, however, we are not dealing
with the claims of mortgagees under Chapter IV. In this B
case we have to consider whether the appellants had laid

-"" a claim which a co-sharer could not put forward except by
pleading ouster or any other independent ground. Even if
they were in actual Khas possession within the meaning
of Section 2(k) of the Act it must be held that the plaintiff c
who was a co-sharer was in constructive possession
through the appellants as "under the law possession of one
co-sharer is possession of all the co-sharers". We see no
reason to hold that the observations of this Court to the
above effect in P.L. Reddy v. L.L. Reddy are not applicable
D
to the case before us. The appellants do not claim to be
trespassers on the property: neither did they claim any title
to the lands adversely to the plaintiff-respondent. The
deeming provision of Section 6 must therefore ensure for
the benefit of all who in the eye of law would be regarded
as in actual possession. It follows that the plaintiff had not E
lost his share in the Bakasht lands and had a right to them
though not as tenure-holder or proprietor but certainly as a
Raiyat under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The
1 'Y appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs."
F
13. We will assume that the Act is a complete Code but its
operation must be limited to the purpose for which it was en-
acted. It is a well settled principle of law that a provision in the
statute ousting jurisdiction of the Court must receive strict con-
struction.
G
-'(
14. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration
is as to whether the civil court's jurisdiction is completely ousted.
15. In Lokhraj (supra) this Court referred to Bhubaneshwar
Prasad Narain Singh (supra). The judgment of this Court in
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

..., •.
A Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh (supra) was, with respect,
not correctly read in Lokhraj (supra). Paragraph 4 of the said
decision reads, thus:-

"4. Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right,
title and interest of the inamdar or any person having
B occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested
the same in the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar, 4'-
thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest in the
land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the
statutory operation unless re-grant is made. We are not
c concerned with the consequences that would ensue after
re-grant of this appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary for us
to go into the question that may arise after the re-grant."

16. The said decision, therefore, is not an authority for the
proposition that only the person in whose name occupancy right
D
is granted became the sole beneficiary thereof. Furthermore
Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh (supra) was, in our opin-
ion, again with respect, had not been correctly applied. The Act
contemplates resolution of dispute between the lnamdar on the
one hand and his lessees and assignees on the other. It does
E not take into consideration the dispute, if any, inter se amongst
the members of the joint family, particularly when as on the date
of grant of occupancy right there did not exist any such dispute.
The Act contemplates grant of decree for partition. It does not
contemplate a case where occupancy right is taken in the name 'f •
F of a person as representing the entire joint family property. Ap-
plication of doctrine of trust is not contemplated in the said pro-
vision. Section 8 of the Act must, therefore, be considered hav-
ing regard to the provisions contained therein. The Act contem-
plates registration of permanent tenants, protected tenants and
G non-protected tenants. There are, thus, different types of ten-
ants. Section 10 merely creates a forum for determination of y-
the entitlement under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act. It does not ere-
ate a forum for determination of the rights inter se between the
parties claiming under the same title.
H
N. PADMAMMA & OTS. v. S. RAMAKRISHNA 547
REDDY & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~· )'-

Useful reference in this connection may be made to Shaik A
Sharfuddin alias Bukka Sharfuddin vs. Joint Collector, R.R.
District & ors 2003 (5) A. L.T. 108.
Right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right. A
right in a property which is vested in terms of the provisions of
the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken away, except in terms B

-).
of provisions of another statute, which would have an overriding
effect.
Such special statute should be a complete code. It shall
ordinarily be a· later statute. Ordinarily again it must contain a c
non-obstante clause.
Law of Primogeniture is no longer applicable in India. Such
a provision may be held to be unconstitutional being hit by Ar-
ticle 14 of the Constitution.
D
•--ii See Bhe and others v. Magistrate, Khayelistha and oth-
ers [18 BHRC 52]
17. Where the civil court's jurisdiction is barred expressly
it must mean that the same would be confined to the matters
covered thereby or connected therewith. The right or the claim E
must be necessarily required to be dealt with by the authorities
under the Act. The grievance/adjudicatory forum provided therein
must be competent to resolve the dispute. The right of property
is a human right. The Act contemplates divesting of right of an
'~ lnamdar. It does not contemplate cessation of a right of a co- F
sharer or recognition of a right in favour of other co-sharer. The
right has to be determined having regard to the possession by
way of personal cultivation. The word 'possession' in such cases
should be given a broader connotation. Possession of one
sharer would be deemed to be the possession of others. It is a
G
legal concept. This legal concept cannot be held to have been
--. done away with under the Act. If a right of property is a human
right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken
away except in accordance with law. Article 300 A of the Con-
stitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article
300 A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.
(See - Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai, [ (2005) 7 sec 627 ].
18. The principle laid down in the said decision, having
B regard to concept of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India
may be held to have some application in a case of this nature.
In terms of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the right of succession
is determined by reason of the provisions thereof. It came into
force with effect from 171h June, 1956. By reason of a legal fic-
C tion created under the Act, the occupancy right is granted with
effect from 201h July, 1955. S. Ramachandra Reddy was alive
then. What would be his status on that date would be relevant.
The legal fiction as is well known must be given its full effect.
19. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of
0
this Court in Lokhraj (supra) had not been correctly rendered.
The matter, therefore, requires consideration by a larger Bench. ~
It is directed accordingly. Let the records of the case be placed
before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India,
K.K.T. Referred to larger Bench.

y-