JUDGMENT: — Antony Viagulam Fernando — the landowner within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, LVIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision. The landowner held an extent of 25.49 ordinary acres. He had a son by name Selvakumar, who held an extent of 43.09 ordinary acres. The landowner has a wife by name Celia Costa. The landowner has an unmarried daughter by name Marina. Out of the total extent of 25.49 ordinary acres, the landowner executed a deed of settlement on 30th September, 1970, giving bis unmarried daughter Marina an extent of 7.53 ordinary acres. On the same day, the mother of the landowner and the grandmother of Marina settled on Marina an extent of 7 ordinary acres. The son Selvakumar died on 16th November, 1967. He is said to have a left a will dated 30th May, 1967 under which the lands held by him of an extent of 43.09 ordinary acres, have been bequeathed in equal moieties to the mother Celia Costa and to one Francis Baldans, stated to be a close associate of Selvakumar. Proceedings under the Act have been taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kovilpatti, in respect of the above holdings. All the lands viz., 25.49 ordinary acres which stood in the name of the landowner, including 7.53 ordinary acres gifted away to his daughter Marina; 43.09 ordinary acres which stood in the name of Selvakumar, the Revenue Registry in respect of which is transferred in the name of the mother Celia Costa subsequently; and 7 ordinary acres gifted to Marina by her grandmother, have been pooled for the purpose of the Act and the Authorised Officer passed orders under section 9 (2) (b) of the Act. The Authorised Officer declined to give effect to the Will and did not take note of the settlements in favour of the daughter, Marina’

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Authorised Officer, the landowner preferred an appeal C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 2 of 1976 which was heard and disposed of by the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tuticorin and the Land Tribunal except with regard to the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, found no justification for interference and dismissed the appeal. In respect of the lands covered by the settlements in favour of the daughter Marina, the Land Tribunal directed that the matter could be agitated in the course of the enquiry under section 10 (5) of the Act. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Land Tribunal.

3. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impeaches the judgment of the Land Tribunal on four grounds. It must be noted that the submissions of the learned counsel are only on the very same four grounds on which the Land Tribunal would not countenance the claims of the landowner. The first ground on which the Land Tribunal declined to countenance the will dated 30th May, 1967, said to have been executed by the son Selvakumar is that, the said Will will come within the mischief of section 213 (1) of the Indian Succession Act, (XXXIX of 1925) Section 213 (1) reads as follows:

"No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed’‘.

The will is stated to have been executed by the deceased Selvakumar in Ceylon. There is no dispute that with regard to the will in question no Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the same or granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed within the meaning of section 213 (1) of the Indian Succession Act. The submission of Mr. K. Parasaran on this question is, the Authorised Officer functioning under the Act is neither a ‘Court’ nor a ‘Court of justice’, so that it could be stated that the satisfacti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document