LAWS(MAD)-1960-3-30

SAKTHI ALIAS THAYAMMAL Vs. KUPPATHAMMAL AND ANR.

Decided On March 09, 1960
Sakthi Alias Thayammal Appellant
V/S
Kuppathammal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal raises a question of great contemporary significance and some legal interest, though the facts themselves are extremely simple. The facts are that in I. A. No. 1289 of 1959 in O. P. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, the present appellant (the property guardian of a minor sought, under S. 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), for permission to sell 55 standard acres of lands belonging to the minor. The legal principles which are applicable to the matter are clear, and not in dispute. The interest of this case arises, not from any difficulty with regard to the interpretation of the sections of law, but from the peculiar and, exceptional grounds upon which necessity for the alienation was sought to be based.

(2.) IN the present context, the property guardian (the appellant) filed this petition because of an impending piece of legislation fixing a ceiling upon the possession of landed property by any single individual in the State. Here, the facts are not in dispute that a declaration of the intentions of Government in this regard was made upon the floor of the Legislature, and that it was generally published that this land reform was imminent, and that the ceiling would be fixed at 30 standard acres or so. Further, the appellant had adequate grounds for the belief that compensation might be awarded only at Rs. 1000 per acre for the lands taken over by the Government, this amount also being distributed in payment over a period of years.

(3.) IN a brief order, the learned District Judge dismissed this application. He gave two grounds therefore. The first was that "nothing definite is known about the anticipated legislation." The second was that the avowed object appeared to him to be to get over the legislation, which might even amount to contravention of a public policy. The learned district Judge added "No court can countenance such a proposal." the petition was dismissed with these observations.