K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY
Pothila Manik Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. reptd. by the special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Sangareddy – Respondent
What is the legal status of a woman married to a party who already has a living spouse for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973?
Key Points: - A woman married to a party who already has a living spouse cannot be treated as a spouse in the legal sense for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (!) (!) . - A marriage performed contrary to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (where neither party has a living spouse) is null and void (!) . - A marriage that is null and void ab initio does not create legal rights and obligations between the parties (!) . - The lower Appellate Tribunal's finding that a woman in a bigamous marriage must be treated as a spouse because the marriage had not been declared null and void was erroneous (!) . - The fact that parties have not approached a court for a declaration of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not alter the position that the marriage is void (!) . - In interpreting the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, the general provisions of Hindu Law and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be ignored (!) . - Properties in the name of the second wife (Satyamma) should be excluded from the holding of the declarant (Pothila Manik Reddy) (!) . - The Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) was allowed (!) .
( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is, whether a woman who has been married to a party who has already a spouse living can be treated as a spouse and thus be a member of the family unit for the purpose of the provisions of andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) act, 1973,
( 2 ) THE question arises in the following manner. The declarant pothula Manik Reddy had married one Radhamma as his first wife. While she is living and as he has no children, he also married one Satyamma. His second wife owns some lands in her name. But as there were no issues to him through Satyamma also, he adopted ore Sangareddy. The Land Reforms Tribunal included the lands which were in the name of Satyamma, in the declarant s family unit and aggregated them and computed the holding and fixed the ceiling area of the declarant. The first Tribunal in so computing, treated satyamma also as a member of the family unit and held that the family unit is entitled to only 1. 0000 S. H, and determined the excess as 0. 9635 S. H.
( 3 ) THE declarant along with his adopted son preferred an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the ap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.