http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: V.S. GOVINDASAMY (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DIRECTOR OF LAND REFORMS MADRAS AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/02/1998

BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SRINIVASAN, J.      Leave granted.      The only question before us in whether the lands gifted to Sumathi the unmarried daughter of deceased Govindasamy by his father Swami goundar could be included in the holding of Govindasamy’s family  for the  purpose  of  calculating  the ceiling area. 2.   The relevant  facts which  are not  in dispute  are  as follows: 3.   The Tamil  Nadu Land  Reforms (Fixation  of ceiling  on land) Act  1961  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Act") received the  assent of the President on 13th April 1962. It was amended  by the  Tamil Nadu  Land Reforms  (Reduction of ceiling on land) Act 17 of 1970. According to Section 3(11), the date  of commencement  of the  Act means the 15th day of February 1970. Section 3 (31) defines the ‘notified date’ as the date specified by the Government in a Notification which shall be  a date  after the  publication  of  the  Act.  The relevant notified  date in  this case  is 2.10.1970. Between 15.2.1970 and  2.10.1970 Swami goundar had executed deeds of settlement gifting an extent of 17.615 standard acres to his grand daughter  Sumathi through  his son  Govindaswami under three  documents.   When  the   Authorities  under  the  Act initiated proceedings  to  calculate  the  ceiling  area  of Govindaswami’s family,  they included  the lands  gifted  to Sumathi by  her grand  father. An  order was  passed by  the Assistant  Commissioner  (Land  Reforms)  holding  that  the family of  Govindaswami consisting  of himself, his wife and unmarried daughter  had a  surplus of  18.178 standard acres and directed  Govindasami to  declare the same. On an appeal to the  Land Tribunal,  the order was confirmed in so far as it related  to Sumathi’s  property. A  revision petition was filed  in   the  High   Court  of  Madras  which  was  later transferred to  the Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras on  the constitution  thereof. The Tribunal dismissed the  revision  by  order  dated  14.8.95  holding  that  the question is  concluded by  a judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No  4419 of  1989 dated  27.10.1993. It is that order which is challenged in this petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

4.   Section 5  (i) of  the Act provides that the ceiling in the case of every person and the ceiling area in the case of every family  consisting of not more than five members shall be 15  standard acres. The word ‘person’ has been defined in Section 3(34)  as   to  include  any  family  among  others. ‘Family’ is  defined in  Section 3(14). The relevant part of the Section is in the following terms:      ....(14) "family"  in relation to a      person means  the person,  the wife      or husband,  as the case may be, of      such person and his or her :-           (i) minor  sons and  unmarried      daughters, and           (ii)   minor   grandsons   and      unmarried grand  daughters  in  the      male line,  whose father and mother      are dead....      Explantion II:-  for the purpose of      this clause:           (a) in  the  case  of  persons      governed by  Hindu law,  "unmarried      daughters",  and  "unmarried  grand      daughters"   shall    not   include      "unmarried daughter"  or "unmarried      grand daughters" -           (i) in  whose favour  any land      has been voluntarily transferred by      either of  whose parents  or  grand      parents on  account of natural love      and affection; or           (ii)   in   whose   favour   a      preliminary  decree  for  partition      has been passed before the notified      date....." 5.   Section 22  of the  Act empowers the Authorised Officer to declare  a transfer  or a  partition effected on or after the date  of the  commencement of  the Act  but  before  the notified date  to be  void if  he finds that the transfer or the partition  as  the  case  may  be  defeats  any  of  the provisons of  the Act. An exception to the Section is carved out in Section 21A which was inserted by the Amending Act 17 of 1970.  Under Clause  (b) of that Section where any parent or grand  parent has  voluntarily transferred  any  land  on account of  natural love  and affection  to any  minor  son, unmarried  daughter,   minor  grandson  or  unmarried  grand daughter in  the male  line after  the 15th  day of February 1970 but  before the  2nd day of October 1970, such transfer shall be valid. Thus there can be no doubt that the transfer by Swami  goundar in  favour of his unmarried grand daughter in the male line namely Sumathi is valid. 6.   On that  premise, if  we  consider  the  provisions  of Section 3(14)  she shall  not be  included in  the family of Govindaswami because  of Clause  a  (i)  of  Explantion  II. Learned counsel  for the  respondents contends that clause a (i) will apply only if there is a transfer by Govindasami in favour of  his unmarried  daughter when  the ceiling area of Govindasami  is  being  determined.  According  to  him  the transfer by  Swami goundar  in favour of his unmarried grand daughter Sumathi  could  exclude  her  from  the  family  of Swamigonda if  and when a question arises with regard to the ceiling area  of Swami  goundar.  In  other  words,  learned counsel wants  us to  read explanation II by adding the word ‘respectively’ after  the word  ‘grand  parents’  in  clause a(i). There  is no merit whatever in this contention Clauses (a) of  Explanation II  refers to  unmarried  daughters  and

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

unmarried grand daughters. They shall not be included in the family if  in their  favour any  land has  been  voluntarily transferred by  either their  parents or  grand  parents  on account of  natural love  and affection. The language of the clause is  very plain  and the  purpose of such exclusion is also very clear. Obviously, the Legislature does not want to club the  properties of  a daughter  which she has  obtained absolutely by  way of gift from her parents or grand parents with the  other properties  of the person whose ceiling area is determined.  If such clubbing is permitted, the father of the unmarried  daughter would  conveniently declare the land exclusiveluy gifted  to her  by her  grand father as surplus area and  thus deprive  her of  the property given to her by her grand father. 7.   on a  plain reading  of Sections  referred to above, we have no  hesitation to reject the contention urged on behalf of the respondents. 8.   Reliance is  placed by  the respondents on the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No 4419 of 1989 - C.S. Sampath &  Ors.   Versus  The   Authorised  Officer,  Land  Reforms, kaacheepuram  dated   October  27,1993.  We  have  read  the judgment.  It   does  not  contain  any  discussion  on  the question. It  has merely  affirmed the view expressed by the High Court. 9.   Our attention is drawn to a para in the judgment of the High court  in that  case which  has been  extracted in  the order of the Special Appellate Tribunal in the present case. A perusal of the same shows that ex facie it is inconsistent and the  reasoning  is  in  violation  of  the  language  of Explation II of Section 3 (14) of the Act. 10.  Our attention  has been  drawn to  a judgment  of  this Court in Susila Devi Ammal and others Versus State of Madras 1993 Supp. 1 S.C.C. 462. That was a case of partition during the relevant  period and  the High Court  had overlooked the provisions of  Section 21A  of the Act. This Court set aside the judgment  of the  High Court  and remanded the matter to the Land  Tribunal. That  ruling has  no  relevance  in  the present case. 11.  In the  view we  have expressed  earlier on  the  clear language   of Section  3 (14),  we  have  no  difficulty  in concluding that  the lands  gifted to  Sumathi by  her grand father Swami  goundar cannot  be included  in the holding of Govindaswami’s family.  With respect  to those lands she has to be  treated as a ‘person’ separately holding the lands as full owner thereof. The judgment of the special Tribunal and the orders of the Authorities below  are unsustainable. They are hereby  upset. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) is directed  to re-determine  the holdings  of the family of Govindasami (deceased)  after excluding  the lands gifted to his daughter  Sumathi by her grand father Swami goundar. The appeal is  accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.