Co-parceners in ancestral property have a right to their shares, and the definition of 'dependent' in Section 30-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, includes major children unable to support themselves due to various reasons.

1. - On a declaration filed by Radha Vallabh, ceiling proceedings were initiated under Chapter 111-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (for brevity, 'the Act'). In that declaration, Radha Vallabh who died during the pendency of this petition, averred that after the death of his father Shri Balabux in Samvat year 1993, i.e. 40 years back, 315 bighas of land in the khatedari of his father situated in villages Nalka and Talawara, Tehsil Baran, District Kota, devolved upon him as a sole heir of Balabux; that, he was married and has three sons, namely, Jugal Kishore, Nand Kishore and Dhanraj that, 35 standard acres, of land was given to Jugal Kishore by way of family arrangement in the year 1956 and that, Nand Kishore and Dhanraj filed a suit for partition of the ancestral property against Radha Vallabh that suit was decreed on 29. The Authorised Officer (SDO Baran) by his order dated 27.2.1976 decided the ceiling case holding that Nand Kishore and Dhanraj were minors as such they were not entitled to any separate shares in the land in question. The Authorised Officer further held that 53.44 standard acres of land is surplus in occupation of the petitioner, Radha Vallabh, and the same is assumable. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the SDO., an appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal was partly accepted by order dated 22 4.1976 by the Revenue Appellate Authority coming to the conclusion that Nand Kishore was major on 1.4.1966 i.e. relevant date for the purpose of determining the ceiling area and that, Dhanraj was minor on 1.4.1966 so he was not entitled to get separate share in the land in question. Hence this writ petition is for quashing the aforesaid impugned orders of the Authorised Officer (SDO Baran) and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Agricultural land in possession of the petitioner. Radha Vallabh, was ancestral property and his sons as co-perceners, were entitled to receive equal shares alongwith their father and that Nand Kishore and Dhanraj (petitioners) were not dependent to the petitioner and thus they cannot be held to be members of the family of Radha Vallabh,

3. Radha Vallabh, in reply to the notice given under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Rules, 1963. (for brevity the Fixation Rules) claimed that the agricultural land devolved upon him on his father's death and in the ancestral property his sons were entitled to receive equal share in it as co-parceners and that the decree for partition has been awarded in favour of Nand Kishore and Dhanraj.

4. We may state that this fact has been taken note of by the Authorised Officer in his order dated 27.2.1976 but he did not give any finding as to whether the property was ancestral in the hands of the petitioner Radha Vallabh and whether Nand Kishore and Dhanraj were dependent to him. It is settled principle that co-perceners are entitled to a right in the whole of the property and the co-sharers and co-tenants have a right to joint enjoyment of their joint property. It is true that partition of joint Hindu family property cannot be regarded as transfer for the simple reason that every co-parcener has an antecedent right and title to the entire coparcenary property though the extent of his right is not determined until partition takes place. Partition under the Hindu law puts an end to the unity and continuity of the ownership between the co-parceners. Thus, it is correct to say that no transfer of property takes place when a partition of the property is effected. By partition the individual co-parceners simply gets his stare and be becomes exclusively entitled to his share, the title and possession of his share from the date of partition vests in him.

5. In view of the above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the subordinate authorities fell in error in not giving any finding as to whether the property in the hands of the peti