JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-The father of the appellant Nos. 2, 4 & 5 to 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 to be surplus land. Aggrieved by this Order, an appeal was preferred before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as LRA No. 1107/77 which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by this Order, a revision petition C.R.P. No. 7171/79 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 29 of the Hindu Succession Act whereby Section 29-A was inserted. The appellants contended that they were entitled 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 by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. We heard the appellants Counsel and the Counsel for the State. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri M.N. Rao 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 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.

3. 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(f) in the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which is as follows:-

"3(f) family unit means-

(i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses such 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 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."

4. 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 .

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

"(1) 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.

(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.

(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.

Expla