The definition of 'family' in Section 37 (b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act does not include a married daughter, and the legislature deliberately omitted to speak anything regarding a married daughter.

AGRAWAL, CJ.

( 1 ) THE significant issue which members in this writ application referred to a large-Bench may be precisely formulated in the following terms : - "whether the properties held by a married daughter of a 'family' prior to the appointed date mentioned in S. 37 (b), Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') would be liable to be clubbed with the property of the family?"

( 2 ) THE facts -petitioner 1 is the daughter of petitioner 2. She had been married way back in the year 1940 and has been living with her husband all along. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, Bonger-Bojha, a proceeding under the Act was started against petitioner 2 who subsequently filed a return on 14-5-1974 (after the expiry of the stipulated period ). On the publication of the Draft Statement on 16-8-1975, objections were filed by the said landholder and his adopted son (Gadadhar Das) separately on 15-9-1975 raising various points. In the said proceeding, an inquiry was also made which revealed that petitioner 1 was the only legitimate daughter of petitioner 2 who was married at Jeypore and was residing with her husband and had got A. 15. 72 of lands recorded in her name in Khata No. 8 in village Dehana. The revenue authorities, by the impugned orders (Annexures-1, 3 and 4), have held that the lands of the daughter would also be taken to the account of petitioner 2 for the purpose of fixation of ceiling area in view of the Revenue Department Circular dt/. 11-3-1976. According to them, the Act did not envisage exclusion of the property held by a major married daughter even though it was specific with respect to the major married son living separately by partition or otherwise before 26-9-1970.

( 3 ) THE Division Bench, considering the importance of the point and doubting the correctness of certain observations made and views expressed in some other decisions of this Court, referred it to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This is how the question indicated above arises for an answer.

( 4 ) THE difficulty that arises is on account of the definition of the term 'family' in the Act. Section 37 (b) defines 'family' as follows :-" 'family' in relation to an individual means the individual, the husband or wife, as the case may be, of such individual and their children, whether major or minor, but does not include a major married son who as such had separated by partition or otherwise before the 26th day of September, 1970. " the artificial and statutory definition of 'family speaks nothing regarding married daughters like a married son who, if major and separated by partition or otherwise before the appointed date goes out of the net of 'family'. Section 37-B speaks of persons not entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. It says that on and from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, no person shall, either as landholder or raiyat or as both, be entitled to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area. The explanation to this section is as follows :-"for the purpose of this section all lands held individually by the members of family or jointly by some or all the members of a family shall be deemed to be held by the family. "

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the Mitakshara Law, a joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters, A daughter ceases to be a member of her father's family on marriage, and becomes a member of her husband's family. This position is well settled and no discussion is called for. A Hindu coparcenary, however, is a much narrower body than a joint family which includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. Obviously, therefore, the conception of a joint Hindu family constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor w