Upon the demise of a life estate holder, the life estate devolves to the vested remainder holder and is excluded from the computation of the declarant's holding under Section 12(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE short but rather complex question is whether on the demise of the declarant, a life estate holder, after filing the declaration under the andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 the life estate held by the declarant, will devolve on the vested remainder holder immediately and if so whether the said extent shall stand excluded from the declarant s holding.

( 2 ) THE provision in this regard is enacted under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act, which reads:-"where any land is surrendered or is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by any limited owner or by any person in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through a part-performance of contract for sale or otherwise, the possession of such land shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed revert to the owner". Before construing-the aforesaid provision it is necessary to state the facts of this case briefly. They are; One Potharaju, who was the original declarant in this Civil Revision Petition, had a wife and a son. Long before the advent of this Act, a partition suit was filed by the son and eventually when the matter came to be decided by the High Court, it resulted in compromise wheie under an extent of Acs. 10-95 cents was to be given to the said Potharaju, only a life estate in it, and the vested remainder to the grandchildren of the said Potharaju. Likewise Acs. 7-13 cents were given to the wife, only life estate, in it, and the vested remainder to the grand children. Now, under the Ceiling Act, separate declarations were filed, and in the declaration filed by the said Potharaju he included in his holding the life estate and also that of his wife as per the compromise and also acs. 3-00 and Ac. 1-00 wherein he and his wife respectively had asbolute rights. The total came to Acs. 22-08 cents. The declaration was filed on 9-4-1975 and the declarant Potharaju died in July, 1975. It is under these circumstances whether the life estate in an extent of Acs. 10-95 cents held by the declarant has to be excluded from his holding on the strength that on his demise the interest in the said extent by virtue of the compromise vests in the grand children. Faced with these circumstances, the Tribunals below held that the position with regard to the entire holding will have to be looked into as it obtained on 1-1-1s75 and on 1 -1 -1975 since the declarant had the entire interest in the holding including the life estate, the life estate cannot be excluded from the computation of the declarant s holding. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) SRI. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a case where the life estate holder files a declaration and on determination if any excess is determined the said life estate holder will be entitled to surrender the extent of the life. estate vis-a- vis the surplus in favour of the vested remainder holder, as per the decision of this Court in m. Chittamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1) (1976 (II) An. W. R. 384 ). If that is so, it is much more in case where the life estate holder having filed the declaration dies immediately thereafter and in consequence thereof the vested remainder will devolve on vested remainder holder or at any rate that would be deemed to have passed on to the vested remainder holder. Consequently it would be not only anamalous, but would lead to incongruous results, if the extent allowed to be included within the declarant s holding. The vested remainder, on the demise of the life estate holder in July, 1975, having passed on to the vested remainder holder will have to be necessarily shown and included in the holdingof the vested remainder holder. If that is so, the same land cannot be allowed to reflect for the purpose of determination of the holding in two holdings. There is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel. Though the situation as it obtains in this case is not explicitly contemplated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document