The legislative intent of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 was to impose a ceiling on land holdings and obligate surrender of excess land owned or held on the notified date, and voluntary transfers after the notified date did not affect the obligation to surrender the excess land.

1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 10th October, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala.

2. The respondent in the High Court challenged the order of the Land Board directing him to surrender 8.78 acres of land. The High Court declared on a revision petition that the respondent was not liable to surrender the lands specified in the order of the Land Board.

3. The respondent filed a statement under S.85 (a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 hereinafter called the Act and showed there that the statement related to the family consisting of himself, his wife and children. Two of his children were minors on 1st January, 1970. The ceiling area allowed under S.82 (1) of the Act for a family consisting of two or more but not more than five members is 10 standard acres which should not be less than 12 and more than 15 ordinary acres in extent. On this footing the respondent would be entitled to have not less than 12 acres on the notified date,namely, Ist January, 1970. He was found to have a total area of 28.38 acres. He alone was the owner of all lands. Out of 28.38 acres 3.87 acres were exempted under S 81. Excluding 3.87 acres and another 12 acres for the ceiling area the excess land was 12.51 acres. A statement showing the determination was served on him and his wife. They were asked to file objections.

4. Two of the respondent's children a daughter and a son who were minors on 1st January 1970 attained majority in 1971 and 1973 respectively. On 28 March, 1974 the respondent executed three deeds of gift transferring a total extent of 18.83 acres to his three children. To the oldest of them a daughter, who was a major on 1st January, 1970 he transferred 3.84 acres. To the second daughter who became a major in 1971 he transferred 3.85 acres and to his son who became a major in 1973 he transferred 5.14 acres.

5. The respondent filed an objection on 5th April, 1974 stating that he and his wife who were the remaining members of the statutory family did not hold more than the ceiling area available to the family and therefore he was not liable to surrender any excess land. The Land Board recognised the gift to the eldest daughter who was a major on 1st January 1970 and required the respondent to surrender 8.78 acres which was the subject matter of the other two deeds of gift.

6. The respondent's contention which was accepted by the High Court was repeated here. The contentions were these The donees were not minors on the date of the gift. Therefore, the son and the daughter would not constitute members of the family. S.82 of the Act only fixes the ceiling area. The ceiling is 5 acres for an unmarried person or a family consisting of one sole surviving member. The ceiling is 6 acres for a family of two to five members, 12 acres for a family of more than 5 members, 10 acres increased by one acre for each member in excess of 5 etc. The respondent emphasises that the status or nature of the person or the family is relevant. If a person is a single member family on the relevant date, he cannot claim a larger ceiling on the ground that he became a two member or five member family later. Under S.83 of the Act the notified date is 1st January, 1970. This notified date is relevant only for fixing such ceiling. S.83 does not say that the particular person or family loses its title to the excess land on that date. S.84 of the Act has two parts. The first part contains body of the section. The second part contains exceptions. Therefore, it is said by the respondent that all voluntary transfers of excess land falling in the body of the section shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. The gifts in the present case are said by the respondent to fall under the last exception of S.84 of the Act and it is said that the transaction is saved by the last exception.

7. The respondent further contends that on 1st November, 1972 the Amendment Act 17of 1972 deleted two exception