DHANUGACHALAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in CRP. No. 1495 of 1974 is the major son of the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974. The latter is the manger of a joint Hindu family of himself, his wife two sons and a daughter. The children were minors on 1-1-1970, but one of the sons attained majority after that date. According to the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974 that son demanded his share of the joint family properties after he attained majority and he filed a suit for partition of his share in the properties. Pending suit the father executed a gift in favour of the major son for 6 acres of land. Evidently the attempt is to claim that though the properties which are considered as that of the family of the petitioner in CRP. No. 1257 of 1974 belong to a family of five members on 1-1-1970 one of the sons having attained majority later and he having right by birth and therefore independent title to claim his share, besides the share due to the family the share due to an adult unmarried son must also be reckoned in determining the ceiling limit. It is further said that at any rate the gift in favour of the son for the share due to him must be upheld and the extent of the land covered by the gift should be excluded from the ceiling provisions.

(2.) The scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 is to determine the ceiling limit of the family where there is a family. The family is defined as that consisting of the husband, wife and the minor children. S.82(1) fixes the ceiling limit and S.82(2) deems the lands owned or held by any member of a family as land of the family for the purpose of Chap.3. Therefore, irrespective of the question of the title of the members of the family to the lands, the total extent of lands owned or held by such members will be taken as lands of the family for the purpose of ceiling limit. Irrespective of any other question, if on 1-1-1970, the family consisted of husband, wife and three children, the extent that could be owned or held as ceiling limit will be that permissible for a family of not more than 5 members and that is how that has been reckoned. Subsequent attainment of majority of one of the members is irrelevant for the purpose of ceiling.

(3.) The second contention, namely that the extent covered by gift should be excluded is also unsustainable as such gift is subsequent to 1-1-1970.