THOMAS MARIAMMA Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD THIRUVALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Taluk Land Board directing her to surrender an extent of 35 cents determined as land held in excess of the ceiling area due to her. The petitioner submitted a return stating that she is in possession of 6 acres 46 cents and that excluding the land eligible for exemption under S.81 there is no excess land to be surrendered. After making the necessary verification the Taluk Land Board prepared a draft statement and a copy of it was served on the petitioner. In that draft statement it was mentioned that an extent of 13.91 acres of land was held by her and that she must surrender 7.41 acres. She filed an objection stating that her husband was the owner of 19 acres 69 cents, that he died 30 years ago, that under the Travancore Christian Succession Act the entire properties belonged to her two daughters subject to her life estate over a share equal to that of a daughter. After stating the lands which have been partitioned by the daughters she stated that she is in possession of 6 acres 46 cents in Sy. No. 139/4 and 151/1C and that she has got only a life estate in it. She concluded her objection by stating that she has no excess land to be surrendered. The Taluk Land Board considered her objection. Her statement that she is in possession of 6 acres 46 cents only was accepted. But the Land Board took the view that she has got absolute right over the said area in view of S.16 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act. On that basis and excluding the land eligible for exemption she was found to hold 35 cents in excess of the ceiling area due to her and that was ordered to be surrendered. This conclusion is attacked in this revision petition.

(2.) The Taluk Land Board is clearly wrong in its conclusion that she is absolutely entitled to 6 acres 46 cents in view of S.16 of the Christian Succession Act. S.15 of the Christian Succession Act provides that on the death of a male his property would devolve upon his wife and upon those who are of the kindred of the deceased in the order and according to the rules prescribed in S.16 to 31. S.16 provides that where the intestate has left a widow, if he has also left lineal descendants, a share equal to that of a son shall be allotted to her. If the lineal descendants of the deceased consist only of his daughters or the descendants of any deceased daughter or daughters, it is further provided that the widow's share shall be equal to that of a daughter. S.24 provides that over the share which a widow or mother gets under S.16, 17, 21 and 22, she will have only a life interest terminable at death or remarriage. So reading S.16 along with S.24 it is clear that the right of the widow over the share she gets is only that of a life estate holder. In the order of the Taluk Land Board this aspect has been ignored or overlooked. Going by S.16 alone it may be right to hold that the widow gets a share equal to that of a son or a daughter. But, reading S.16 along with S.24 there is no escape from the conclusion that the right of the widow is only that of a life-estate holder. That being so, the order of the Taluk Land Board that the widow got absolute right under S.16 of the Christian Succession Act is wrong.

(3.) From this conclusion a further question arises whether a ceiling case can be taken against a person who has got only a life interest over the properties in his or her possession. S.83 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is to the effect that no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. The expression "owner" is defined as a "person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land". The expression "to hold" is also defined to mean possession of land as the owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as a tenant. A life estate holder is neither an owner nor a tenant as defined in the Act. He cannot also be said to be a person in possession under a mortgage. Therefore the prohibition contained in S.83 does not apply to a person having a life interest only in the lands in his or her possession. In this view there is no scope for applying the ceiling provisions of the Act to the petitioner if the petitioner holds the land only as an heir of her husband. At this stage it has to be mentioned that the respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner's case in the objection is different from what she has stated in her return. In her return she said that she is the absolute owner of the lands mentioned in the return. In the verification report submitted by the Tahsildar to whom the return was forwarded he mentioned that the petitioner is in possession of 6 acres 46 cents and that her husband is no more. In her objection to the return she clearly mentioned about the extent of the land held by her husband, how she got the lands which are in her possession and what became of the other lands belonging to her husband. The order of the Taluk Land Board also proceeds on the basis that the properties belonged to her husband only. The statement in the return regarding her interest in the property therefore can only be taken as incorrect. It follows that the petitioner cannot be called upon to surrender any land in view of the fact she is only a life interest holder of the properties in her possession. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.