IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A decision rendered long ago can be over-ruled only if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is manifestly wrong or unfair and not merely on the ground that another interpretation is possible and the Court may arrive at a different conclusion.
2. Only the lands owned by the husband and the family chosen by him as per explanation I to Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act will be taken into account for calculating the ceiling area of a family when the declarant has more than one wife.

JUDGMENT

Paripoornan, J.-This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, rendered in C.R.P. No. 1894 of 1988 dated 18.7.1994. The appellants are the legal representatives of T. Mammad, the declarant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The declarant had three wives and ten children by the said three wives. He filed a declaration regarding the land held and possessed by him before the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). In his statement, he had opted his wife Pathu (first wife) and her minor children as his "statutory family" by exercising the option specified in explanation I to Section 82 of the Act. The Board, by order dated 28.8.1996 directed the declarant to surrender 160.54 acres of land held by him in excess of the ceiling area. In revision, C.R.P. No. 2131 of 1986 the High Court set aside the order of the Board and ordered a remit. Thereafter the Board by order dated 28.6.1988 passed a fresh order determining 97.16 acres as surplus land of the declarant. The Board also noticed that the declarant had already surrendered 43.20 acres as surplus land and, therefore, the declarant was directed to surrender the remaining area. The order so passed by the Board was assailed in revision before the High Court of Kerala in CRP No. 1894 of 1988. The declarant and after his demise his legal representatives contended that the declarant having three wives and ten children in the three wives, each wife and her children shall be deemed to be a separate family under explanation I to Section 82 of the Act and, therefore, the ceiling area in respect of each family has to be deducted from the total holding of the declarant. This plea was repelled by the High Court. The High Court held thus :

"The properties of the husband, the wife named by him and their unmarried minor children will be taken into account for the purpose of determining the ceiling area as if they constitute one family. Regarding the other family constituted by the other wife and her unmarried minor children, the ceiling provisions are to be enforced as if they constituted a separate family and their properties alone will be taken into account for that purpose. In other words, the properties of the husband will not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family constituted by that wife and her children. This position has been made clear by the explanation, the intention of which was to confine the family to the husband and one of the wives and their unmarried minor children for the purpose of the ceiling provisions of the Act".

(emphasis supplied)

The High Court observed further :

"When the husband and one of the wives and their children constitute one family the ceiling area has to be determined on the basis of the properties possessed or owned by them and not by the other wife or wives as the case may be. The properties possessed or owned by the other wife or wives are not taken into account for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the family constituted by the husband, the wife named by him and their children."

(emphasis supplied)

It was noticed by the High Court that the order passed by the court in CRP No. 1891 of 1988 to exclude an extent of 15 acres was not given effect to by the Board. So, an extent of 15 acres directed to be deleted by the order in CRP No. 1891 of 1988 was directed to be excluded from the properties mentioned in part D of the order showing the lands to be surrendered. The revision filed by the declarant was allowed in part. Since the declarant is no more the legal representatives have come up in appeal against the said order passed in revision by the High Court dated 18.7.1994 modifying the order of the Board.

2. We heard counsel. The submission made before the High Court was repeated before us. Counsel contended that the declarant having three wives and ten children by