Back
1970 Supreme(Bom) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.B.Padhye, J.
Appellants: Narayanrao Shamrao Deshmukh and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay and Ors.
Spl. Civil Appln. Nos. 163 of 1967 and 724 of 1968 Decided On: 28.04.1970
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.P. Deo and S.N. Kherdekar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.G. Palshikar, Asst. Govt. Pleader and Adv. General
The members of a joint Hindu family who have well-defined shares in their own rights under the Hindu Succession Act cannot be considered a "family" within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, and their individual shares must be considered separately for determining the surplus land.
Headnote:
CEILING ACT - SECTION 2(11), 2(20), 4, 6 - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 6, 8 - HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT - INTERPRETATION - JOINT HINDU FAMILY - DEFINITION - SURPLUS LAND - DETERMINATION - TENANTS-IN-COMMON - STATUS - SHARES OF INDIVIDUALS - CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINING SURPLUS LAND.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitions raised a common question of law regarding the interpretation of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Ceiling Act) and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining surplus land and the rights of joint Hindu family members. In the first case, the heirs of Shamrao, who died leaving behind his son Narayanrao, widow Sulochanabai, and mother Gangabai, claimed that they were no longer members of a Hindu Undivided Family and sought to retain land up to the ceiling area based on their individual shares. In the second case, the heirs of Mahadeoappa, who died leaving behind his son Jagannathappa, widow Bahnabai, and married daughter Mandakini, also claimed separate ownership of their shares and challenged the declaration of surplus land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the definition of "family" under Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act includes a Hindu undivided family and other persons who are joint in estate or possession or residence. However, in the instant cases, the court found that the members of the joint Hindu families had well-defined shares in their own rights under the Hindu Succession Act and could not be considered joint in estate or possession. The court also held that the members of the families were tenants-in-common and not joint tenants, as each had a defined share in the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the whole property left by the deceased and now owned by the co-heirs in defined shares should be taken as one unit for determining the surplus area under the Ceiling Act. 2. Whether the members of the joint Hindu families could be considered a "family" within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "family" under Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act and held that it includes a Hindu undivided family and other persons who are joint in estate or possession or residence. However, the court found that the members of the joint Hindu families in the instant cases had well-defined shares in their own rights under the Hindu Succession Act and could not be considered joint in estate or possession. 2. The court also held that the members of the families were tenants-in-common and not joint tenants, as each had a defined share in the property. Therefore, the court concluded that the members of the families did not constitute a "family" for the purposes of the Ceiling Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed both petitions and set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in both cases. In the first case, the court held that no land out of 157.15 acres could be declared as surplus. In the second case, the court remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for further enquiry to determine the surplus land with respect to Narayanrao and Sulochanabai separately.
2. Special Civil Application No. 163 of 1967 is by the three heirs of one Shamrao Deshmukh who died on 15-6-1957 leaving behind him his son Narayanrao, his widow Sulochanabai and his mother Gangabai, who are the present petitioners. While Shamrao was alive he and the petitioner No. 1 formed a joint Hindu family in which according to the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937, Shamraos widow and Narayanraos mother Sulochanabai, had a right to claim partition in the event of the partition between the father and the son and after the death of Shamrao she had a right to claim partition from her son Narayanrao. The Hindu Succession Act which came into force with effect from 17th June 1956 made the mother also an heir along with the son and the widow and in the share owned by the deceased Shamrao during his life time the son, the widow and the mother held equal shares. As per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rangu-bai v. Laxman, AIR 1966 Bom 169 when the interest of the deceased coparcener is to be determined under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Courts have first to determine what is the property available for partition, then partition all the corparcenary property setting aside the share of the widow to which she is entitled in her own right and divide the share of the deceased coparcener amongst the heirs. Thus when a Hindu coparcener leaves a widow and a son on his death, on a partition during the life time of him, the widow would have been entitled to one-third share and on succession to a further one-sixth share. On the basis of this decision for determining the share which would go to the heirs of Shamrao it will have to be assumed that there was a notional partition immediately before the death of Shamrao between him, his son and the wife and Shamrao would have had only one-third share in the property which would devolve on his death on his heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. On the basis of the authority of this decision, his son Naravanrao would be having four-ninth share, the widow Sulochanabai would have had four-ninth share and the mother Ganga-bai would have had one-ninth share. On the death of Shamrao these respective shares became defined and would on their respective deaths go to their own heirs. Thus the three heirs of Shamrao would become the tenants-in-common having well defined shares in the property left after the death of Shamrao.
3. Special Civil Application No. 163 of 1967 arises out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Ceiling Act which came into force with effect from 26th of January 1962. The joint family of Shamrao and Narayanrao held 305-49 acres of land in the Vidarbha Region and mostly in the Nagpur District, the ceiling area being 108 acres in some places and 96 acres in others. If total area of 305.49 acres is taken to be as one unit then there would admittedly be much excess area in the occupation of the petitioners and that much excess area would be liable to be declared as surplus under the Ceiling Act.
4. After the coming into force of the Ceiling Act, the petitioners filed a ioint return showing the total extent of land as 305.49 acres but contending that by a family arrangement between the parties on 30-3-1957 their shares in the property were defined and accordingly these petitioners were holding distinct shares in the property and each of them was entitled to retain land upto the ceiling area. Out of the total area shown it was alleged that some of the properties were already transferred and they could not be taken into account. After considering all the objections of the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Officer with powers of the Collector found that the total area to be taken into consideration for determining the surplus land would come to 304-63 acres a
