A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE case of the petitioner which raises rathsr important aspect not only with reference to the provisions enacted under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act but also with reference to the Amended section 29-A of Hindu Succession Act, which come into being on 16-5-1986,

( 2 ) THE case in short is that the petitioner herein filed a declaration under section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act ) in CC No. 1292/clx/75 through her maternal uncle as she was of unsound mind. Her allegation, which in fact, is not in dispute, is that she is not married and in order to safeguard her interest, she asked her maternal uncle to file the declaration signed by her. She has a brother who also filed a separate declaration in C C No. 1293/clx/75. Though separate declarations were filed but they were clubbed and admittedly without any notice to the petitioner herein standardued the Holding. Since the brother alone was put on notice, being under the impression that he can as well safeguard the interest of his sister being the natural guardian. The finding eventually of the primary tribunal was that while rejecting the case of the petitioner as well as her brother that there was a family settlement and during the lifetime of their father certain property was given to her and therefore eversince she has bean enjoying the property and consequently that should be determined as her holding, and held that only 1/4 share was allotted to her since they continued to be joint and the same was determined and since no surplus was found, that has become final. Since there was some surplus in respect of her brother s holding, he was satisfied with the determination and did not prefer any appaal. However, she filed an appeal. In the appeal, the petition taken by the primary tribunal was confirmed. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri Ramalah, learned counsel for the petitioner that ad,ottedly her declaration was filed through her maternal uncle as she is of unsound mind, claiming that she is entitled to certain property as per the family settlement. Admittedly, no notice was given to her nor to her maternal uncle. Adverting to this aspect, the appellate tribunal erred in holding that her brother was looking after the case of the sister alto and so there was no necessity to issue separate notice to the sister. I apprehend the position adopted by the appellate tribunal is improper. As the sister admittedly is not minor, she is capable of locking after her own interest and ronsequently notice under Rule 6 of the Rules made under the Act must have been given to her and therefore I have no manner of doubt that the decisions of the appellate tribunal as well as the primary tribunal must be set aside and they are accordingly set eside.

( 4 ) THE next aspect that was canvassed and very rightly by the learned counsel for the petitioner which, however, for the first time is taken in this revision, is that under the amended provisions of Section 29 A of the Hindu succession Act, the daughter equals a son and therefore only 1/4th share was allotted to her instead of 1/2 share. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that family settlement, for some reason, is disbelieved which finding, however, is not binding on her, nevertheless she is entitled to half share of the property, juxtaposed with that of her brother. Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act reads thus:"29-A : Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this 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 right in the same manner as the son and 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 in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document