( 1 ) IN this revision petition two contentions are urged by Sri C. Narasimhacharya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that in the ancestral lands of the declarant s father, who died in 1967, his widow would be entitled to a half share and not a 1/4th share and, therefore, the half share of the widow should have been excluded from the holding of the declarant and not 1/4th share. But , this contention cannot be accepted because in the instant case, only the widow and the son are heirs to the ancestral property. The son will be entitled to his own half share and half share in the other half of the ancestral property and the widow will be also entitled to a half share therein. The contention that the widow will be entitled to a, half share in the whole of the ancestral property is wholly unsupportable and has to be rejected.

( 2 ) THE second contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that acre 12-72 cents covered by Survey No. 197 is in the possession of a protected tenant and, therefore, the same should have been excluded from the holding of the declarant. The Tribunal rejected this contention or the ground that the protected tenant h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document