LAWS(KER)-1977-3-17

ALBUTHAMMAL Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR

Decided On March 14, 1977
ALBUTHAMMAL Appellant
V/S
TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st petitioner is a Vannia Tamil Christian of chittur Taluk in Palghat District. She is the widow of one Santiagu who died in the year 1113 M. E. , long before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession act. The 2nd petitioner is the brother of the said Santiagu and the 3rd petitioner is the son of deceased Sourimuthu, another brother of Santiagu. As per the order dated 14 51976 in Ceiling Case No. 647/73, initiated on the statement filed by the 1st petitioner under S. 85a of the Kerala Land Reforms act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Taluk Land Board, Chittur, directed the 1st petitioner to surrender 5. 48. 500 acres of land determined to be the extent of land held by her as the sole surviving member of her statutory family, in excess of the ceiling area specified under the Act.

(2.) THOUGH several contentions are seen to have been raised in the memorandum of civil revision petition, Sri N. Sugunapalan, the counsel for the petitioners, confined his arguments to the point which related to the nature of interest the 1st petitioner had in the lands involved in the proceeding, requesting that inasmuch as a decision on the other grounds may not be necessary for a disposal of this revision petition, they may be left open without being decided.

(3.) IT is on an interpretation of S. 14 of the Hindu succession Act, Act 30 of 1956, which came into force on 17th June 1956, that the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner is the full owner of the property left behind by her husband Santiagu The material portion of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, relied on by the Taluk Land Board, reads as follows: " (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and Dot as a limited owner. " In the opinion of the Taluk Land Board the 1st petitioner was to be treated as the full owner of the property, as she was having possession of the property.