http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAGHUNATH LAXMAN WANI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF  MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1971

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. RAY, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2137            1972 SCR  (1)  48

ACT: Maharashtra  Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling on  Holdings  Act) 1961-ss.  3,  4,  6-Ceiling area-Act  does  not  contemplate refixation on account of increase or decrease in the  number of members of family after appointed day-Additional 1/6th in excess  of ceiling area for each member of family in  excess of five-Section 6, proviso.

HEADNOTE: In   proceedings  held  under  s.  14  of  the   Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands  (Ceiling on Holdings)  Act,  1961,  the Deputy Collector rejected the appellants’ case of  partition and determined the surplus land to be surrendered under  the Act.   He  also held that of the 14 members of  the  family, three of them were born after January 26, 1962, that is, the appointed day under the Act, that appellant M had purchased 11 acres of land separately on March 11, 1960 and  therefore they could not be treated as members of the family under  s. 6  for  the  purpose of the additional 1/6th  of  the  basic ceiling area.  On appeal, the Revenue Tribunal accepted  the findings  of the Deputy Collector.  But the Tribunal made  a modification in the order of the Deputy Collector in that it held that though the property was acquired in the name of  M there was nothing to show that the acquisition was from  his separate  funds  or was to be held by  him  separately  and, hence  he  could  not be excluded from the  family  for  the purpose  of  s. 6. The Tribunal  consequently  modified  the ceiling area. HELD : (i) The Deputy Collector and the Tribunal have, after an examination of the materials placed before them,  arrived at  the  concurrent  finding that the  appellants’  case  of severance of status and partition of the family land was not acceptable.   This Court will not be justified in an  appeal under Art. 136 in interfering with such a concurrent finding of fact. [54G] (ii) The  scheme of the Act is to determine the  ceiling  of each  person  including  a  family  with  reference  to  the appointed  day.   The  ceiling area so fixed  would  not  be liable  to  fluctuations  with the  subsequent  increase  or decrease  in  number of the family members,  for  there  is, apart from the explicit language of ss. 3 and 4 no provision in the Act providing for the redetermination of the  ceiling area of a family on variations in the number of its members.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

The argument that variations in the number of the members of a  family  required a redetermination of  the  ceiling  area would  mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation  in the  ceiling  area by the revenue authorities,  a  state  of affairs  that  could  not  have  been  contemplated  by  the lagislature. [57H;58B-D] State v. Dinkarrao Rarayanrao Deshmukh, (1969) 72 Bom,  L.R- 237  and Murari Rao S. Gube Patil v. State, Spl.   C.A.  No. 767/68, dt. 49 18-4-1968  referred to; view contra in Civil Application  No 1578 of 1969 decided on 16-7-1969,(Bombay) held incorrect. (iii)     Under  the  proviso  to s. 6 for  the  purpose  of increasing the holding of a family in excess of the  ceiling area,  if  a member there of holds any  land  separately  he cannot  be  regarded  as a member of that  family  for  such purpose.  The proviso is clear, since there was no  evidence that M or the family had treated the lands purchased in  the name  of M on March 11, 1960 as the separate property of  M, the  tribunal  was right in regarding M as a member  of  the family  and  consequently holding that the family  would  be entitled  to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area so  far as M was concerned. [59E-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated September 2, 1966 of the Maharastra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in Appeal No. ALC-A 12 of 1966. V.   M.  Tarkundey, V. M. Limaye and S. S. Shukla,  for  the appellant. V.   S. Desai, S. B. Wad and S. P. Nayar, for the repondents Nos.  1 and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat,  J.  This appeal by special leave,  is  against  the judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Maharashtra   Revenue Tribunal,  dated September 2, 1966, in proceedings  held  by the  Deputy  Collector  under  S.  14  of  the   Maharashtra Agricultural   Lands   (Ceiling  on  Holdings)   Act,   1961 (hereinafter  referred  to as the Act) in respect  of  lands held by the appellants. The following pedigree explains the relationship between the appellants:                Tukaram (dead)                        -------------- Narayan, d. about 1920=Laxmibai Madhav=Maltibai Alka (minor)                             Laxman, d. 5-6- 1954=Warubai                                Raghunath=Rukhminibai                  Ramesh  Suresh    ShailaMukand                 (minor)  (minor)(minor) (minor) 50 It is not in dispute that, until at any rate 1956, appellant Raghunath and the other members of the family formed a joint and undivided Hindu family of which Raghunath, on the  death of his father Laxman in June 1954, became the karta and  the manager.  The family then held 523.03 acres of lands situate  at  Ranjangaon,  Sangwi,  Karajgaon,  Shindi  and   Odhre villages.   In  1956,  appellant  Raghunath  gave  a  vardhi (intimation)  to the talathi stating that he and  the  other members  of his family had entered into a partial  partition whereunder  Laxmibai, the widow of Narayan,  received  41.13

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

acres of land of Karajgaon, Kashinath, named Madhav  Narayan after  his adoption, 74.20 acres of land in  Shindi  village and  Warubai, his mother, 64.03 acres of land of Shindi  and Odhre  villages.   The balance of 343.07 acres of  the  said lands  still stood in his name.  But his case was  that  the members of the family had separated and ceased to constitute a  joint and undivided family, and therefore, held the  said balance in equal shares as tenants-in-common.  The  position thus  was  that  on  August 4, 1959  343-07  acres  of  land comprising of 180-20 acres of Rajangaon and 162-27 acres  of Sangwi villages remained in his name.  It was said that  out of these 343 -07 acres of land, 75 -27 acres had come to his share thus leaving 267-20 acres of land held by them all  as tenants-in-common. On   April,   1,  1960,  Raghunath   sent   another   vardhi (intimation)  to the talathi of Ranjangaon stating that  the partition by metes and bounds, which had remained partial in 1956,  had  been completed on that day.  He  also  intimated that under this partition 75 -27 acres of land of  Rajangaon village  went  to Rukhminibai and Ramesh, his wife  and  son respectively,  53 -29 acres of Ranjangaon village to  Madhav and his wife, Maltibai and 8 .36 acres of Ranjangaon village to Warubai, his mother, i.e., the widow of Laxman. According  to  the  appellants, all the  lands,  which  were partitioned  and  allotted in 1956 to Laxmibai,  Madhav  and Warubai  had  been sold away most of them before  August  4, 1959  and  the  rest in 1960  and  1961.   Likewise  between October, 17, 1960 and May 30, 1962 Raghunath had sold 150-13 acres out of the remaining lands.  The result of the alleged partition  and the sales was that Raghunath held only  54-22 acres of lands at Rajangaon and 51 Sangwi and that therefore, there was no surplus land for him to declare, the ceiling for this area under the Act being 96 acres  for  an  individual or a family  consisting  of  five members. In  support of their case of partition in 1956 and 1960  and the  sales of lands which had come to the shares through  it of  the  different  members of the  family,  the  appellants relied  on  their  own affidavits,  the  statements  of  the various transferees, the said vardhis by Raghunath,  certain market receipts showing sales of agricultural produce by the members of the family, extracts from village forms 7, 7A and 12  showing the different crops grown in the lands  and  the names of the different members of the family set out therein as  occupants,  and lastly, a consent deed dated  April  11, 1960 executed by Madhav, Laxmibai and Warubai which  recited the said partial partition in 1956, the fact of their  being tenants-in-common  in respect of the rest of the  lands  and the  authority given by them to Raghunath to sell the  lands for  himself  and on their behalf and on Such  sales  having been  effected each of them having become entitled to  1/4th share in the sale proceeds. The Deputy Collector, however, rejected the appellants  case of  partition,  firstly in 1956 and then in 1960,  and  held that  the family at the material time held 343 -07 acres  of lands.   He  also  held that out of the 14  members  of  the family  as  three of them had been- born after  January  26, 1962,  that  being the appointed day under the  Act  and  as appellant  Madhav  had  purchased  11  -20  acres  of   land separately  on March 11, 1960, they Could not be treated  as members  of  the  family under sec. 6  for  the  purpose  of additional  1/6th  of the basic ceiling area.  Thus  on  the basis  that  the  family consisted of  10  members  only  he allowed  96 acres plus 5/6th thereof, in all 176  acres  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

declared the remaining 167 -07 acres as surplus. On an appeal under sec. 33 of the Act, the Revenue  Tribunal accepted the findings of the Deputy Collector rejecting  the appellants’  case of partition and held that the said  sales effected  by the members of the family were made  to  defeat the  objects  of the Act.  The Tribunal, however,  made  one modification in the order of the Deputy Collector, in  that, it  held that though Survey No. 81 was acquired in the  name of Madhav on March 11, 1960, 52 there was nothing to show that that acquisition was from his separate  funds  or was to be held by  him  separately,  and therefore, he could not be excluded from the family for  the purposes of sec. 6. In this view the Tribunal held that  the family held 343 07 acres plus II -20 acres purchased in  the name of Madhav, i.e., 354 -27 acres, that the family members being  II in number, each of them in excess of five  members was entitled to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area, and that consequently, the ceiling area for the family would  be 192 acres.  The surplus area thus would be 162 -27 acres and not 167 -07 acres as declared by the Deputy Collector.   The present   appeal   challenges  the  correctness   of   these conclusions of the Tribunal. The Act was brought into operation as from January 26, 1962, which  is  the  appointed  day  under  sec.  2(4).   Sec.  3 provides:               "In  order to provide for the  more  equitable               distribution of agricultural land amongst  the               peasantry  of the State of  Maharashtraon  the               commencement  of  this  Act,  there  shall  be               imposed  to  the  extent, and  in  the  manner               hereinafter  provided,  a  maximum  limit  (or               ceiling)  on the holding of agricultural  land               throughout the State." Sec.  4(1) lays down that subject to the provisions  of  the Act  no person shall hold any excess over the ceiling  area, as  determined "in the manner hereinafter provided".   Under sec.  4(2),  all  land held by a  person  (which  expression includes  a family) in excess of the ceiling area, shall  be deemed to be surplus land.  Sec. 5 provides for the  ceiling area, in the several local areas and for each class of land, fixed  having  regard to the soil  classification,  climate, rainfall  and other factors enumerated therein.  Under  sec. 6,  if  a  family consists of  members  exceedings  five  in number,  such family is entitled to hold land exceeding  the ceiling area to the extent of one-sixth of the ceiling  area for each-member in excess of five, so however that the total holding is not to exceed twice the ceiling area, and in such a case, in relation to the ceiling of that family, such area shall  be deemed to be in the ceiling area.  The proviso  to sec. 6 runs as follows. 53               "Provided  that for the purpose of  increasing               the  holding  of  a family in  excess  of  the               ceiling  area  as  aforesaid,  if  any  member               thereof holds any land separately he shall not               be  regarded  as a member of that  family  for               such purpose." Sec.  8  provides  that  no person, who,  on  or  after  the appointed  day,  holds land in excess of the  ceiling  area, shall  on or after that day transfer or partition  any  land until the land in excess of the ceiling is determined.  Sec. 9  prohibits  any  person  at any  time,  on  or  after  the appointed  day, from acquiring by transfer or partition  any land if he already has land in excess of the ceiling area or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

land which together with any other land already held by  him will exceed in the total the ceiling area.  Sec. 10 provides that  if  a  person  after August 4,  1959  but  before  the appointed   day,  transfers  or  partitions  any   land   in anticipation of, or in order to avoid or defeat the  objects of this Act, or if any land is transferred or partitioned in contravention  of sec. 8, then, in calculating  the  ceiling area of such a person the land so transferred or partitioned shall be taken into consideration and the land exceeding the ceiling  area so calculated shall be deemed to be in  excess of  the ceiling area for that holding  notwithstanding  that the land remaining with him is not in fact in excess of  the ceiling  area.  If by reason of such transfer  or  partition the  holding  of  that  person is  less  than  the  area  so calculated to be in excess of the ceiling area, then all his land shall be deemed to be surplus land and out of the  land so  transferred  or  partitioned and in  possession  of  the transferee  land to the extent of such deficiency  shall  be deemed  to  be surplus.  Sec. 12 then provides that  if  any person  (i)  has  at any time between  August  4,  1959  and January 26, 1962 held, or (ii) on or after January 26,  1962 acquires, holds or comes into possession any land in  excess of  the ceiling area, or (iii) whose land is converted  into any  other  class of land as a result of the expiry  of  the period or the date set out in sec. 2(5), or (iv) whose  land is  converted  into any other class of land in  the  circum- stances  described  in  sec.  11,  e.g.,  as  a  result   of irrigation from a source constructed by Government,  thereby causing  his  holding to exceed the ceiling area,  then,  he shall  furnish  within  the  respective  periods  prescribed therein to 54 the  relevant Collector a report containing  particulars  of all lands held by him.  In such cases, the Collector has  to hold an enquiry under sec. 18 in respect of the matters  set out in that section, namely, the area of land held by such a person  on  August 4, 1959, whether any acquisition  by  him between  August  4,  1959 and January  26,  1962  should  be considered  in calculating the ceiling area, the total  area held  by  him on January 26, 1962, whether any  transfer  or partition  is  made by him contrary to sec. 8,  whether  any land has been acquired or possessed on or after January  26, 1962  by transfer or partition, whether there has  been  any acquisition  on  or after January 26, 1962  by  testamentary disposition,  devolution on death or operation of  law,  the total  area held by him on the date of enquiry and the  area he is entitled to hold etc.  At the end of such enquiry, the Collector has to make the declaration in terms of sec. 21. The  first  question  which  emerges  for  determination  is whether  there  was  severance of the  joint  family  and  a partition  in  respect of some of the lands in  1956  and  a completion  of  that  partition in 1960 as  alleged  by  the appellants.   It is true that in support, of their  case  of partition  partly in 1956 and then in 1960,  the  appellants relied on (1)  the two mutation vardhis by Raghunath to  the talathis, (2)  sales  of lands which came to the  shares  of and  which were allotted to certain members of  the  family, (3)  market  receipts showing sales by such members  of  the agricultural produce of lands, and (4) the affidavits by the members  of  the family and their transferees.  It  is  also true  that  in  the vardhi (intimation) to  the  talathi  of Rajangaon on April 1, 1960, appellant Raghunath recited  the fact  of  the partial partition having been made on  May  1, 1956 and the said affidavits also mentioned the fact of  the severance  of  status  and the fact of the  members  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

family holding thereafter the family properties as  tenants- in-common.   Both  the Deputy Collector  and  the  Tribunal, however,  arrived at a concurrent finding for reasons  given by both of them after an examination of the materials placed before  them that the appellants’ case of the  severance  of status  and partition of the family lands partially in  1956 and  then  in  1960 was not  acceptable.   The  question  is whether we would be justified in an appeal under Art. 136 in interfering with such a concurrent finding of fact. 55 As  noted  by both the authorities, no  partition  deed  was admittedly  executed  by the parties either in  1956  or  in 1960.  The only documentary proof adduced in support of  the alleged partition consisted of the vardhis, sales of  lands, the  market receipts for sales of agricultural produce  said to  be  the  produce of the lands allotted to  some  of  the members of the family unaccompanied, however, with any proof that  the  sale  proceeds thereof were  appropriated  by  or accounted  to those members.  The vardhis  merely  intimated the  talathis of a partition having been made and asked  for the  consequential ’mutations.  By themselves they were  not regarded  by  the authorities as conclusive  proof  of’  the severance of status or a partition by metes and bounds. It  is somewhat strange that though the family was  said  to have been disrupted and its severance brought about and  the members  thereof were said to hold the rest of the lands  as tenants-in-common. (i) No proof was adduced of the  division of other properties, such as the houses which numbered  ten, (ii)  the shares allotted in 1956 to Laxmibai, the widow  of Narayan,  Kashinath alias Madhav and Warubai, the  widow  of Laxman,  were so unequal as to afford no principle or  basis for  such  distribution.  and (iii) even in  1960  when  the partition  by  metes  and  bounds  was  said  to  have  been completed,  the  inequality in shares was not sought  to  be removed,  nor  was  any case of the division  of  the  other family  properties  set  up.   It is  true  that  a  consent document was produced which purported to give Raghunath  the authority to sell the lands which were said to have come  to the shares of the members of the family.  But that  document also  would  be  of no avail unless  its  premise,.  of  the partition, was acceptable on its own merits.  In considering that  premise, it is important to bear in mind,  that  under the alleged partial partition of 1956 Laxmibai was  allotted 41  acres,  Madhav,  adopted by her in or  about  1954,  was allotted  74  acres and Warubai, the widow  of’  Laxman  was allotted about 64 acres.  The rest of the lands continued to stand in the name of Raghunath but in which all the  members of the family were alleged to, have equal shares as tenants- in-common.  Yet, when in 1960 the partition was said to have been  completed, there remaining lands were divided  between the wife of Raghunath, Madhav and his son and Warubai  only, and  no further lands were allotted to Laxmibai although  in 1956 only 1245 SupCI/71 56 41 acres were given to her.  It is thus difficult to  compre hend  the basis or the principle upon which the  lands  were said to have been divided amongst the various members of the family.  But, apart from this circumstance, the question  is would Raghunath, who admittedly was the karta of the  family and as such held all the lands in his name, have agreed  to give  41 acres of lands to Laxmibai in 1956 ?   Narayan,  we were  told, had died in or about 1920 leaving him  surviving as  his  only  heir his widow, Laxmibai.  As  the  law  then stood, Laxmibai would not have been entitled to any share in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the joint family properties.  Under the Hindu Women’s Rights to  Property  Act, XVIII of 1937, a widow  governed  by  the Mitakshra school became entitled in a joint family property, to  the same interest as her husband, such  interest  being, however,  only  a  Hindu women’s estate.  But  the  Act,  by reason  of S. 4 thereof, applied to the property of a  Hindu dying  intestate after the commencement ,of the Act.   There is  nothing on record to show and it appears no  effort  was ever made to establish that notwithstanding Laxmibai’s legal disability  there  was  any agreement  between  the  parties whereunder  she  was given 41 acres ;Absolutely in  her  own right  over and above 74 acres given to Madhav, her  adopted son. The absence of any document regarding the alleged  severance of  the  family  and  the partial  partition  in  1956,  the inequality of shares allotted to some of the members ,of the family  both  in  1956  and in  1960,  the  absence  of  any principle  or basis for such alleged distribution, the  sale of  the  whole of the lands said to have come to them  as  a result  of the alleged partial partition, the emergence  for the first time in 1960 through Raghunath’s said vardhis  and the consent deed that each of the four parties were to  have an  equal 1/4th share in the properties remaining after  the alleged   partial  partition,  the  total  absence  of   any reference  to the other properties such as houses and  move- ables  as  subject matter of the partition, the  absence  of evidence  showing appropriation of the sale-proceeds by  the members  to  whose shares the lands sold were said  to  have come,  all these factors rendered the appellant’s  case  ,of partition  first in 1956 and then in 1960 doubtful.   If  in consideration  of  these factors the  two  authorities  con- ,currently  declined to accept the case of partition, we  on our part would be more than reluctant to interfere and 57 upset such a finding.  The appellants, in our view,  accord- ingly must fail on that count. As  already  noticed, sec. 3 provides that  there  shall  be imposed  to  the extent and in the manner  provided  herein- after  a ceiling on the holding of agricultural land on  the commencement  of  the Act, i. e. , on and from  January  26, 1962.   Under sec. 4, no- person can hold land in excess  of the ceiling area and all land held in excess of the  ceiling area  would be surplus land and would be dealt with  in  the manner provided for such surplus land.  Sec. 5 provides  for the  ceiling  area in each of the local areas and  for  each class of land as set out in the Schedule.  Since a family is included  in  the  definition of  ’person,  a  family  which consi sts  of five persons would be entitled to the  ceiling area  as  laid down in sec. 5. In cases of  families  having more than five members, they would be entitled to hold  land exceeding  the ceiling area to the extent of 1/6th  of  such ceiling  area for each member in excess of five.  In such  a case,  the ceiling area for such a family would be the  area so calculated.  But the proviso to sec. 6 lays down that  if any  member of such a family holds any lands separately,  he is  not  to be treated as a member of that  family  for  the purpose  of  increasing the holding of that  family  to  the extent as aforesaid, i. e., 1/6th of the basic ceiling area. Having provided thus for the fixation of a ceiling area  for every person and having provided that there shall be imposed on every person a ceiling on and from the appointed day, the Act,  by secs. 8 and 9 lays down that (i) no person who  "on or after the appointed day" holds excess lands shall, on  or after  that  day, transfer or partition any land  until  the excess  land  held by him is determined, and  (ii)  that  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

person  at  any time on and after the  appointed  day  shall acquire by transfer or partition any land if the has land in excess  of the ceiling area or land which together with  any other land already held by him would exceed in the total the ceiling area. The  scheme of the Act seems to be to determine the  ceiling area  of each person (including a family) with reference  to the appointed day.  The policy of the Act appears to be that on and after the appointed day no person in the State should be permitted to hold any land in excess of 58 the  ceiling  area  as determined under  the  Act  and  that ceiling  area  would be that which is determined as  on  the appointed  day.  Therefore, if there is a family  consisting of persons exceeding five in number on January 26, 1962, the ceiling area for that family would be the basic ceiling area plus 1/6th thereof per member in excess of the number  five. The   ceiling  area  so  fixed  would  not  be   liable   to fluctuations with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number  of  its  members,  for, there  is,  apart  from  the explicit language of secs. 3 and 4, no provision in the  Act providing  for the redetermination of the ceiling area of  a family  on  variations in the number of  its  members.   The argument  that every addition or reduction in the number  of the  members  of a family requires  redetermination  of  the ceiling area of such a family would mean an almost perpetual fixation and re-fixation in the ceiling area by the  Revenue authorities,  a  state  of  affairs  hardly  to  have   been contemplated  by the legislature.  The argument  would  also mean  that  where a surplus area is already  determined  and allotted to the landless persons such area would have to  be taken  back  and  given to a family,  the  number  of  whose members subsequently has augmented by fresh births.  It  is true that sec. 12 does lay down an obligation  on  a person  to  furnish  to the Collector  a  report  containing particulars  of all lands held by him if he has held at  any time  after August 4, 1959 but before the appointed  day  or has  on or- after the appointed day acquired or held or  has come  into possession of any land in excess of the  ceiling. area  as  envisaged  by  sec. 10  (2)  or  whose  lands  are converted  into any other class of land as a result  of  the expiry  of  the period or date specified in sec.  2  (5)  or whose land is converted into any other class for the reasons given  in  sec.  11 and the Collector then has  to  hold  an enquiry  and  declare his excess land under  sec.  21.   But these are the only cases contemplated where there would have to be a re-appraisal of the ceiling area, otherwise the Act, as  aforesaid, visualises the ceiling area of  every  person with reference to the conditions prevailing on and the  land held  by him as on the appointed day.  Such  a  construction appears  to be borne out by the provisions of secs. 3 and  4 as also of secs. 8 and 9 of the Act.  This is also the  view taken by the High Court of Bombay on more than one occasion. (See 59      State v. Dinkarrao Narayanrao Deshmukh (1), also Maruti Rao S. Gube Patil v. State (2) and also Special C.A. No. 229 of  1968,  dec. on July 11, 1969.  A view contrary  to  that taken  in  the above mentioned cases was  adopted  in  Civil Application  No.  1578 of 1969 decided on July 16,  1969  by another  Division Bench of that High Court.  But  that  does not appear to be a correct view as the learned Judges  there failed  to  appreciate that sec. 12 contemplates  a  limited number  of cases where a ceiling area has to be  refixed  by reason  of the intervening events.  Except for those  cases,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

the scheme of the statute is that a ceiling area  is  to  be ascertained with reference to the state of affairs  existing on  the appointed day.  In this view, the  Revenue  Tribunal was  right  in  not  taking  into  consideration  the  three children  born in the family after the appointed  day  while determining the ceiling area to which the appellants’ family was entitled to.      As regards the land purchased in March 1960 in the name of Madhav, the proviso to sec. 6 is clear.  For the  purpose of  increasing  the  holding of a family in  excess  of  the ceiling area, if a member thereof holds any land  separately he cannot be regarded as a member of that family for   such purpose.   There  would be in such a case  two  alternatives only.  Either that land is held to be the separate  property of  Madhav, in which case he cannot be regarded as a  member of the family for the purpose of sec. 6. or it is treated as a family property although it might have been purchased  for some reason or the other in Madhav’s name.   In  the  latter event, though it would be added to the total holding of  the family,  Madhav would be regarded as a member of the  family and  the family being one having more than five members,  it would be entitled to an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area so  far as Madhav is concerned.  The Tribunal  rightly  took this  view and included the additional 1/6th area, as  there was  no evidence that Madhav or the family had  treated  the said land as a separate property of Madhav. For  the reasons here in above contained the  appeal  fails. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs. K.B.N                             Appeal dismissed. (1)  (1969) 72 Bom.  L.R. 237. (2)  Spl.  C.A. 767 of 1968, dec. on April 18, 1968,  (Patil and Nain, JJ. (Unrep.) 60