The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for the relief of resumption under the Land Reforms Act should only consider the lands owned or possessed by the group with common interest, and not the properties individually owned by the members of the group.

1. This is a revision petition filed under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act challenging the legality of the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam in L R. A. S.1698 of 1972 on its file, whereby an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam dismissing O. A. No. 759 of 1971 filed by the petitioner and some others seeking resumption of one-half of a holding from the possession of the 1st respondent herein was confirmed. The landlord in respect of the property was one Sankaran Ankan. He had leased the property to the predecessor-in-interest of the 1st respondent in 1083 M. E. fixing a pattom of 16 paras of paddy. Sankaran Ankan died in or about the year 1963. The application before the Land Tribunal was filed by the widow and children of Sankaran Ankan, who together constituted all the legal heirs of the deceased. The revision petitioner herein was the 1st applicant before the Land Tribunal and the other heirs were applicants Nos. 2 to 8. The properties jointly owned by the applicants did not exceed in extent the limit specified in S.2 (52) of the Act, wherein the expression "small holder" is defined. But the Land Tribunal held that the applicants were disqualified for claiming resumption for the reason that some of them individually owned small items of other lands and if the total extent of those lands held by them individually is added on to the properties jointly owned by them as heirs of Sankaran Ankan such aggregate would exceed 4 acres in extent. There was no dispute that each one of the applicants considered individually owned only very much less than 4 acres and that the property owned by them in common was also less than the said limit. However, the view of the Land Tribunal was that the eligibility of the applicants for claiming the relief of resumption had to be determined by taking into account not merely the property jointly owned by the applicants, but also the other items that are owned by them severally in their own individual right. This view of the Land Tribunal was concurred in by the Appellate Authority in the order that is now sought to be revised.

2. The expression "smallholder" is defined in clause (52) of S.2 in these terms:

"'small holder' means a landlord who does not have interest in land exceeding eight standard acres or ten acres in extent, whichever is less, as owner, intermediary, or cultivating tenant, or in two or more of the above capacities, so however that the extent of non-resumable land in his possession as owner, or as cultivating tenant, or partly as owner and partly as cultivating tenant, does not exceed

(i) two and a half standard acres; or

(ii) four acres in extent, whichever is greater.

Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, a person who was in possession of or had interest in, land exceeding the limits specified in this clause immediately before the 18th December, 1957, but such extent of land was reduced to the said limits or below by partition or transfer effected after the date mentioned above, shall not be deemed to be a small bolder nor shall such partition or transfer entitle the allottee or transferee to exercise the rights of a small bolder in respect of the land allotted or transferred to him;"

Clause 29 defines "landlord" as meaning a person under whom a tenant holds and as including a landowner. The word "person" is defined in Clause.43 thus:

"'person' shall include a company, family, joint family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property;"

3. The landlord in respect of the holding in the present case at the time of filing the application was the body of individuals consisting of all the applicants. That body admittedly owned only an extent of 3 acres 72 cents and it was therefore entitled to be regarded as a 'small holder' for the purposes of the Act. It is also not denied that each one of the applicants taken individually also satisfied the definition of