S.T. KANNABIRAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition against the judgment of the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore) in Appeal No. 731 of 1974 confirming an order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore declaring that the transfer of an extent of 7.56 acres in S. No. 709/1 and O.31 acres in S. No. 709/3 effected by one S. T. Kannabiran under a deed of gift dated 13th September 1970 in favour of his wife in lieu of her maintenance is a void transaction as the intention of the transferor was to reduce his holdings. The point for determination is whether the said transfer is void.

(2.) S.22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reform Act which empowers the Authorised Office concerned to declare that the transfer or partition of any holdings or part thereof is void also lays down that he can do so only if he finds that the transfer or partition defects any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act). In the instant case, the husband has transferred the aforesaid extent of land in favour of his Wife. But, this transfer has not the effect of defeating any of the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the motive of the donor in executing the gift deed irrelevant. By reason of S.5(1)(a) of the Act, a family consisting of not more than 5 members is entitled to 15 standard acres subject to the provisions of sub -S.3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) and of Chapter 8. The family of Kannabiran consists of only four members. 'Family' is defined in S.3(14) as the "wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters, etc.," Therefore, in computing the ceiling limit in the case of the family consisting of Kannabiran, the donor and Muthanna Rajeswari, his wife, the lands transferred to Muthanna Rajeswari by way of gift also will have to be included in the holdings of the family, and the ceiling limit of 15 standard acres will have to be fixed on the basis that the properties owned by Kannabiran as well as the properties owned by his wife Muthanna Rajeswari belong to the family. Hence, the settlement deed, dated 13th September 1970 executed by Kannabiran in favour of his wife Muthanna Rajeswari does not defeat any of the provisions of the Act, and therefore, the provisions of S.22 of the Act are not attracted to the instant case. Hence, the judgment of the learned Land Tribunal and the order of the Authorised Officer are set aside, and the settlement deed, dated 13th September 1970 executed by Kannabiran in favour of his wife Muthanna Rajeswari is held to be valid. However, it is made clear that the lands transferred by Kannabiran under the deed, dated 13th September 1970 in favour of his wife Muthanna Rajeswari shall be treated as the properties of the family for the purpose of fixing the ceiling under S.5(1)(a) of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition is consequently allowed. No costs.