Ratio-Life estate holder is a limited owner.

Both the above revisions are inter-linked and as such they are dealt with together.

2. One Venugopal Naidu executed a will dated 5th February, 1943 whereby all his lands were to be enjoyed by his wife, Aparanji Ammal for her lifetime, and after her death one Radhaswami Charitable Society, Dayalbaph, Agra is to enjoy the same with absolute rights. The will had been duly registered. Venugopal Naidu died on 2nd April, 1945. His wife, Aparanji Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the properties as per the terms of the said will on 6th April, 1960. The Authorised Officer calculated the total extent of the lands in the hands of Aparanji Ammal as 44. 30 standard acres. Though the said Aparanji Ammal filed a return on 5th June, 1963 under section 8 (1) of the Madras Act LVIII of 1961 furnishing a list of surplus lands, she at a later stage while preferring objections under section 10(5) of the Act, put forward a contention that the entire lands possessed by her under the terms of the will would not come under the provisions of the Act as the absolute title in the same had vested with the said Radhaswami Charitable Society, a public religious trust. The Society to whom the properties have been given under the will after the lifetime of Aparanji Ammal also filed objections claiming that the properties will not come within the purview of the Act as they have been dedicated to a religious trust.

3. The Authorised Officer considered the objections filed by Aparanji Ammal and the Society in proceedings under section 10 (5) and held that the properties are (not) exempt from the provisions of the Act, that Aparanji Ammal being entitled to a life estate over the entire property as per the will, she will, come within the definition of “limited owner” an defined in section 3 (28) of the Act, and that as such the lands in question which are possessed by her as such “ limited owner” will be governed by the provisions of the Act. This view of the Authorised Officer was also accepted by the Tribunal. The authorities below have taken the view that the definition of “ limited owner” in section 3 (28) cannot be restricted to a person having a ‘widow’s estate’ alone as contemplated under the Hindu Law, that once Aparanji Ammal comes under the definition of “limited owner”, her holding will be governed by the Act, and that the excess lands in her possession have to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved against the decision of the authorities below. Aparanji Ammal has filed C.R.P.No. 2328 of 1966 and the Society has filed C.R.P. No. 2286 of 1966. Subsequent to the filing of these revisions it seems that Aparanji Ammal had surrendered her life interest in favour of the society, and that all the lands covered by the will had been physically handed over to the society on the date of the said surrender. In these circumstances, the question is whether the properties possessed by Aparanji Ammal as on 6th April, 1960 are exempted from the provisions of the Act as contended for by the petitioners.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the definition of “limited owner” under section 3(28) will take in only persons who have a life estate analogous to women’s estate known to Hindu Law, and not every person who has a limited or a life interest, that except in a case of Women’s estate the other limited or life estate holders cannot part with the property by alienation or otherwise, nor have they any alienable interest in the estate, as there is a vested interest created in favour of the remainderman, and that in such cases the limited or life estate holder cannot be asked to surrender the excess lands to the prejudice of the remainderman. It is also pointed out that the definition of “limited owner” in section 3 (28) itself suggests that the life estate holder should have an alienable interest, and reliance is placed on the words “ includes persons deriving rights through him” occurring in the latter part of the definition, as