IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2186 of 2001 Between: Rongali Suryanarayanamma @ Surya Kumari and another .. Petitioners AND Ruthala Bangarayya @ Jameelu and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree in L.R.A.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 18-04-2001, by which the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners against the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal in L.C.C.No.1072 of 1975 dated 16-03-1998 was dismissed. The factual background for the revision is that the 1st respondent herein is the father of the revision petitioners and he filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Forms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Narsipatnam in L.C.C.No.1072 of 1975, showing his wife and the present revision petitioners as his family members and the present revision petitioners as minors aged 10 and 7 years. The declarant was accordingly decided by the Primary Tribunal to be holding surplus land against which there was an appeal, a revision and a review with the excess being ultimately found to be 0.7594 standard holdings by the Supreme Court. After the judgment of the Supreme Court on 8-10-1992, the declarant was asked to surrender the excess land of Ac.18.98½ cents on or before 4-12- 1992, at which stage the revision petitioners approached the Primary Tribunal claiming the benefits of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming to have been married subsequent to 5-9- 1983 and to be majors. When the Primary Tribunal refused to reopen the matter, the Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.1 of 1993 decided on 04-09-1996 that the Primary Tribunal should have given full opportunity to the revision petitioners including for production of additional evidence before it decided the matter and expressed an opinion even regarding the merits of the claim and accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Primary Tribunal. After remand, the parents of the revision petitioners were claimed to have been examined before the Primary Tribunal and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were claimed to have been marked. The Primary Tribunal in its order dated 16-3-1998 observed that the 1st respondent herein in his statement after remand on 27-12-1996 confirmed his earlier statement dated 5-4-1996 that all his daughters were minors and that he mentioned his age as 32 years on 1-4-1975 in his declaration. The father was also noted to have stated that he was born in 1942 and that his wife was born in 1949. On that basis, the Primary Tribunal considered it impossible that the revision petitioners could have born on 22-05-1951 and 07-01-1956 respectively when the parents would have been aged 9 and 2 years respectively by 1951. Consequently, the Primary Tribunal did not give any credence to the Birth extracts or the wedding cards of the revision petitioners and rejected their claim. In appeal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment going into the disputed questions of fact and law in great detail. The Appellate Judge referred to various precedents cited about the probative value of the entries in the Register of Births and the right of daughters to a share in the properties and noted that the declarant himself had stated in his declaration that he, his wife and the revision petitioners were born respectively in 1942, 1949, 1964 and 1967. The Birth Register extracts were noted to be vitiated by interpolations and the impossibility of the parents born respectively in 1942 and 1949 giving birth to the revision petitioners in 1951 and 1954 respectively was also taken note of. Though the Birth Register extracts were admissible in evidence, the Appellate Tribunal refused to act on them under the circumstances, more so, in view of the belated approach by the revision petitioners to the Primary Tribunal with silence on the part of the parents and daughters also since the declaration till the demand for surrender of excess land from the father after the finality of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs. The revision petitioners contend herein that the findings were arrived at on the basis of the strength of the documents not filed and not marked before it and without any basis for holding that the 2nd revision petitioner’s birth register was interpolated. The Appellate Tribunal ought to have upheld their share in the properties and their claim. Smt. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned counsel for the revision petitioners strenuously reiterated the right of the revision petitioners to a share of the declared properties and placed reliance on Nimmagadda Sambasiva Rao v. State of A.P., Land Reforms, Guntur[1], wherein the daughter of the declarant was held not obliged to file a separate declaration when she is not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area and the share of the unmarried major daughter was directed by the learned Judge to be excluded from the holding of the father. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent, defended the conclusions of the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal as being based on plain physical impossibility of the parents giving birth to the revision petitioners on the dates claimed. None appeared for the 1st respondent before this Court. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners have probablised their being major unmarried daughters entitled to have their share excluded from being tagged on to the holding of the father. It is seen from the material on record that it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent, father of the revision petitioners, had filed a declaration before the Primary Tribunal and also gave a statement before the Primary Tribunal on 5-4-1976 ascertaining that he, his wife and the revision petitioners were born respectively in 1942, 1949, 1964 and 1967 and that the revision petitioners were aged 10 and 7 years respectively by the time of verification of the declaration during the enquiry by the Primary Tribunal. When the declaration was examined at different stages of the litigation up to the Apex Court between 1976 and 1992, the revision petitioners, either by themselves or represented by any guardian during their minority, did not intervene at any stage of the proceedings. It was only when the excess land was finalized and asked to be surrendered, they approached of the Primary Tribunal on 4-1-1993 claiming the benefits of Section 29 A of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from the prolonged silence and unexplained abnormal delay, the parents, who examined themselves after remand by the Appellate Tribunal, did not appear to have explained at any time the assertions by the father in the original declaration and during enquiry before the Primary Tribunal about he and his wife being born in 1942 and 1949 and the original version of the revision petitioners being born in 1964 and 1967 respectively, was also not attempted to be explained to be for any acceptable reason. The father had in fact been noted by the Primary Tribunal to have confirmed during his statement on 27-12-1996 that he gave the earlier statements. It was in that background that the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal primarily refused to place reliance on the Birth Extracts and wedding cards of the revision petitioners. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also with reference to the ordinary and natural course of human events in these parts of the State noted that ordinarily and normally the girls would not have remained unmarried till the age of about 34 years, which would have been their age, had their claims been true with reference to the wedding cards produced by them. It is of course true that interpolations in the Register of Births were also incidentally referred to by the Primary and Appellate Tribunals, but the interpolations are not the primary reasons for not relying on the extracts of Birth Register concerning the revision petitioners. It is the plain physical impossibility of the parents of the revision petitioners being capable of giving birth to the revision petitioners when they would have been aged about 9 or 2 years respectively, that naturally led both the Tribunals below not to act on the claims of the revision petitioners, which cannot be considered to be without reason or justification. The restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked under such circumstances to nullify the reasoned orders of the Tribunals below and therefore, the principle laid down in Nimmagadda Sambasiva Rao v. State of A.P., Land Reforms, Guntur (stated supra), though unexceptionable, has no application to the facts of the case. The revision has to accordingly fail. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 1-12-2010 Ksn [1] 1999 (4) Andhra Law Decisions 321