Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1213 (AP)

Katta Ravi Prakasah v. State of A. P.

2012-12-05

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : The petitioner is the son of one late Gudiva Appala Narsamma, who was a Schedule Tribe, hailing from Konda Dora community. The father of the petitioner by name Sudhakar Rao is also said to be Konda Dora. In the transfer certificate issued to the petitioner by the Government Junior College, Araku, his caste was mentioned as Konda Dora. The mother of the petitioner intended to executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner donating an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land in Survey No.86/1 in Yandapalli Village, Araku Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The document was presented for registration before the Tahsildar, Araku Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, 3rd respondent herein, since he is conferred with the powers of Sub-Registrar in the Agency area. Through endorsement, dated 26.03.2012, the 3rd respondent refused to register the document on the ground that the father of the petitioner was from Kamma community and that the petitioner has to take the caste of his father, though his mother may have been a Schedule Tribe. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the endorsement. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that this Court has taken the view that whenever a marriage takes place between a Tribal woman and a non-Tribal man, the offspring must take the caste of the father and thereby, they would not be entitled to be treated as S.Ts. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reviewed the entire law on the subject through its judgment in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujarat and others (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 400), and it was held that though it may be advisable to treat the children born out of an inter-caste marriage as belonging to the caste of the father, it cannot be treated as a universal principle. Discussion was undertaken with reference to the decided cases and various social problems. The conclusions were summed up in paragraph 55, which reads: 55. In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a trial and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a trial and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated as a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by the people outside the community as well. In the instant case, there is some dispute about the social background of the father of the petitioner. While the petitioner asserts that his father was also a Konda Dora, the information gathered by the 3rd respondent is to the effect that he was from Kamma community. Assuming the conclusion of the 3rd respondent to be true, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of S.T. The relationship between the child and its mother can never be the subject matter of any dispute or interpretation, whereas that of the father would depend upon several factors such as, continued subsistence of marriage. Further, the 3rd respondent himself has registered the deeds of gift executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of her two other sons. Viewed form any angle, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is set aside. The 3rd respondent shall register the document in question without raising any objection, as to the social status of the petitioner. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.