SEETHARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3151/78, 4004/78, 2221/78, and 2274/78 wherein common questions of law do arise, has been directed to be posted before a Division Bench by our learned brother M. Ramachandra Raju, J. for the authoritative pronouncement of judgment, for the reasons that the decision in V. Purnachandra Rao v. State of A. P. (1977) 1 APLJ (HC) 132 BY Justice M. Ramachandra Raju himself, and A, Gangadhara Rao v. G. Gangarao, AIR 1968 Andh. Pra. 291 by Ekbote, J. (as he then was) require reconsideration in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this court. The main and important question that arises is whether a gift of land made in favour of daughter of sister towards "pasupu Kumkuma" as marriage provision requires to be conveyed by a registered document. Secondly, whether such lands the possession of the same given to the daughter or sister without any deed of conveyance being registered is liable to be excluded from the holding of the donor for the purpose of Section 8 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings ) Act 1973.

( 2 ) THE facts are brief and admit of no controversy. C. R. P. No. 3151 of 1978. In this , the petitioner gifted two extents of land to his two daughters Ac. 3-05 cents each on different dates as marriage provision. By means of two unregistered documents Ex. P. 1 dated 20/04/1964 and Ex. P. 2 dated 29th of May, 1969 which are unstamped and unregistered , the gifts were effected. C. R. P. No. 4004 /1978: The petitioner-declarant who has only three daughters and no sons made oral gifts of Ac. 5-05 cents and Ac. 4-72 cents each in favour of second and third daughters, respectively, in the year 1969 at the time of marriage as "pasupu Kumkuma". C. R. P. 2221 / 78: The petitioner who has only one daughter, gifted orally in 1963 at the time of marriage to the extent of Ac. 13-73 cents. Her name is shown in Pahanis which is Ex. A. 2 wherein she has been shown as owner and cultivator from the year 1971 -72 onwards. C. R. P. 2274 / 78: This is also oral settlement effected in the year 1964 at the time of marriage and ever since the daughter is in possession of lands. C. R. P. 3151 / 78:

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Hindu Law, the father is under an obligation to "maintain" an unmarried daughter which term includes reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage and therefore, any property immovable or moveable given to the daughter as "pasupu Kumkuma" towards this obligations is not a gift within the meaning of Section 122, T. P. Act and therefore, does not require any registration. Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 through which an expression of desire to gift away the property has been made in favour of the daughter by the petitioner cannot be termed a gift so as to require any registration. His further contention is that the said Exs. P. 1 and 2 have been already admitted in evidence and cannot now be objected to for their being admitted in evidence and even assuming for some reason, the said documents are not admissible in evidence for want of registration, the same can be used under Section, 49 of the Indian Registration Act for a collateral purpose and at any rate, the petitioner, even if the said exhibits are to be overlooked, can establish the said transaction of giving away the property, by way of oral evidence as admittedly, the daughters are in possession ever since 1964 and 1969 respectively with reference to the entry in the revenue records. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: C. G. T. v. Chandra Sekhara Reddy (A. P.), (1976) 105 ITR 849) , Serandayya Pillai v. Shankaralingam Pillai ( (1959) 2 Mad LJ 502) , Subbayya V. Andhra Ramayya, AIR 1929 Mad 586 (FB) , Hira Devi v. Official Assignee, Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 448 and Kale V. Dy. Director of Consolidation (AIR 1976 SC 807 ). The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that giving any prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document