MENAKA BEWA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities in a ceiling proceeding under Chapter - IV of the Orissa Land Reforms act (in short, the 'O.L.R. Act').

(2.) ONE Ratnakar Nayak, who died in the year 1969 had two wives, His first wife Champabati died in 1940 and the second wife Menaka Bewa is the petitioner. Ratnakar had two sons namely, Sitanath and Radhanath through his first wife. He had two more sons, Sachidanda, Pramod and the three daughters, Ambika, Pra'mila and Kanak through his second wife. A ceiling proceeding bearing No. 82/75 was initiated against Sitanath in respect of all the properties left by Ratnakar. In the said proceeding though it was found that Sitanath and Radhanath, and two sons through the first wife were married and had separated, the proceeding was finalised by giving one ceiling to others. Appeal and Revision filed by Sitanath having proved futile, an application was filed before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. The present writ application has been filed by Menaka Bewa, the second wife of Ratnakar.

(3.) IN Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in order to ascertain the share of the deceased leaving behind many others, female Class -I heirs, it is deemed as if there was a partition just before the death of the deceased. If such deeming provision is taken to its logical end, it must be concluded that a joint family ceases and there is a separation. The principle enunciated in AIR 1978 SC 1239 (Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai khandappa Magdum and others) to the effect that such deeming provision may be taken to its logical end, prima facie, supports the statement of the petitioner that in view of the deeming provision Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, it must be concluded that on the death of a male heir leaving behind Class -I heirs, the joint family comes to end and all the heirs are separated. However, even though such contention appears to be attractive, it cannot be accepted in view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 716 (State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh and others), a decision rendered under the Maharashtra Ceiling Laws. In the aforesaid decision it has been held that a notional partition Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not ipso facto result in disruption of the joint family and the deemed partition is only for the purpose of ascertaining the share and the persons still continue to remain as a member of the joint family. Therefore, the above legal contentions raised at the bar cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court decision holding the field.