Bandi Krishna Murthy vs The Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada

Hon''ble Mr. Ramachandra Rao

In this revision petition the only point urged and which arises for consideration is, whether the shares of a minor son in Hindu Joint Family property governed by the Mitakshra law and who had divided from his father, should be excluded from the holding of the father for determining the extent of the land in excess of the Ceiling area, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973. The question arises this way:--The petitioner filed a declaration u/s 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) in which he had shown has family unit as consisting of himself, his Wife and two minor sons. He stated that he bad gifted some properties to his daughter in the year 1973 at the time of her marriage but this was not effected by a registered document and therefore the land covered by the gift was also taken into account computing the holding of the petitioner. The land Reforms Tribunal found that the declarant owned 0.642 standard Holdings, his wife 0.0768 standard Holdings and their minor sans owned 0.3585 standard holding and the aggregate of the said lands held by the members of the family unit came of 10.695 standard holdings. u/s 4 (1) of the Act, the ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than five numbers being one standard holding, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the family unit of the declarant was holding 0.0695 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area which the declarant was liable to surrender u/s 10 (1) of the Act.

On appeal the only point urged before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was that under a partition deed Ex. A-1 dated 24-10-1971 the declarant and his two minor sons had become divided and according to the partition deed, the declarant was allotted Ac. 5-73 cents, one son Ac, 7-98 and the other son Ac. 8-01-1/2 cents and the shares of the sons which came to Ac. 15-991/2 cents should be excluded from the holding of the declarant in which case the declarant''s holding would be within the ceiling area, This contention was negatived by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that though the partition deed (ex A-I) was valid, still in view of the definition of �family unit� which includes the individual, his spouses and their manor sons and unmarried minor daughters; whether the minor son is divided or undivided, it made no difference and even the separate property of the minor son and also properties of the other members of the family unit have to be aggregated for determining the ceiling area of the family unit. In that view the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. It is this view of the Appellate Tribunal that is challenged in this revision petition filed u/s 22 of the Act.

Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of ''family unit'' in Sec. 3 (f) of the Act, should be road as undivided minor son by giving a restricted meaning to the said expression that the provisions of the Act show that partitions effected prior to 2-5-1972 are perfectly valid, that under the Hindu Law of Mitakishara, the minor son has a right by birth in the joint family properties and it is open to the father to effect severance in status and also divide the properties by metes and bounds, and such partition is unaffected by the provisions of the Ceiling Act and that the Act also recognised a divided minor son as and individual who has to file a separation. He further submits that unless a restricted meaning is given as contended by him, there will be a conflict between the provisions of section 3 (f) and the other provisions of the Act and therefore a construction which harmonises the several provisions of the Act, should be adopted.

It was represented by learned counsel Sri P. Kodandaramayya, M. Jagannadha Rao, and Sri C. Poornaiah, that there are other revision-petitions where a similar point is raised and an opportunity should be given to them to address arguments on the said point. I therefore direct this revision petition to be posted along with other revision petitions.

Only CRP No. 846/1976 filed by Sri P. Kodanda Ramayya, was posted and the other revision petitions were not posted as they were not ready. However all the learned counsel represented that they might also be heard on the point and accordingly they have been heard. Sri P. Kodandaramayya, submitted that the definition of ''family unit'' in section 3 (f)of the Act does not create any fiction but merely recognises the existence of a minor as a member of the family unit, that the explanation to section 3 (f) brings about the fiction by demanding the married minor son and his wife and their offspring as members of the family unit of which the minor is a member, that u/s 4 (3) of the Act, the ceiling is fixed with reference to every individual who is not a member of the family unit, that u/s 7, a partition effected prior to 2-5-1972 is valid and only transfers effected subsequent to the said date, are declared to be null and void, that explanation I to section 8, contemplates a minor who is a member of the family unit, filing a separate declaration and that if ether in fact or in law a minor is not a member of the family he must be treated as an individual entitled to hold a separate unit u/s 4 (3) of the Act. He also submitted that the right to partition conferred by Hindu Law on a member of a Hindu Joint family is not affected by the provisions of the Act and if a bona fide partition has been effected according to the Hindu Law the son even though minor, should be treated as divided member of the family and therefor outside the family unit and be would be entitled to hold a separate unit under the Act.

Sri Challa Krishna Rao, submitted the Legislature is presumed to know the principle of Hindu law, that once 2 coparcenery governed by the Hindu law is broken by partition every coparcener becomes a separate individual, and this concept of Hindu law is now ignored by the Ceiling Act, that section 7 (2) of the Act declares that a partition effected on or after 2-5-1972 shall he null and void, whereas a partition effected prior to the laid date is not touched or prohibited, and only its bona fides have to be established by the person effecting the partition, and that the aforesaid provisions are made with a view to prohibit a minor son separating from the joint family subsequent to 2-5-1972 and claiming a separate unit. He also submitted that the word ''means'' used in defining ''family unit'' the Legislature intended to give it a restricted meaning and not an extended meaning as in the case of ''person'' where the word ''includes'' is used. Relying upon Explanation to section 8, he submitted that it contemplates the existence of a family and also a minor son who is not a member of the said family and such a minor son can only be a divided member who has been put on a par with a minor son and therefore he should be treated as an individual entitled to a separate unit and he cannot be treated as a member of the family unit as defined in the Act. He further submitted that the expression ''not being a member of the �family unit� was subsequently added in Explanation 1 to 8, and this indicates that a divided Hindu minor cannot be treated as a member of a family unit. He invited my attention to the Official Report of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Debates of 1972, Volume 13, where the Chief Minister give the following answer:--

I am not in a position to create right is which do not exist. I do net want to take a way the rights which exist in any individual. Therefore it is just not possible for me to interfere with the personal law or bring in any provision which is the direct or indirect result to interfering with the provision of Law.

Sri K.S. Rama Murthy Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India, contended that the core and the main object of the Act is to be found in section 7 (2) of the Act, that the intention of the Legislature is only to preserve the hotch-pot as it existed on 2-5-1972 unaffected by any partition effected subsequent to the date, that the Legislature never intended to interfere or nullify partitions effected prior to 2-5-1972, that the personal law is left untouched by the Ceiling Act that a partition effected prior to 2-5-1972 according to the personal law even in the case of a minor son, is perfectly valid and recognised by the Ceiling Act, that though the expression ''minor sons'' is not qualified, it should be given a restricted meaning as applicable only to undivided minorsons, that section 3 of the Act begins with the words ''unless the context otherwise requires'' and unless the expression ''minor one'' is given a restricted meaning, it will conflict with the provisions of sections 4, 5, 7, 8, and 17, and that where the expression is capable of two interpretations, an interpretation should be adopted which harmonises all the provisions of the Act and which would not defeat the object of the Act. He further contended that the definition clause cannot override the substantive provisions of the Act which preserves right of a minor son of a Hindu Joint family to effect partition prior to 2-5-1972 and thus cease to be a member of the joint family and once he ceases be a member of the joint family by a valid partition, he cannot be treated as a member of the family unit as defined in the Act.

He submitted that Explanation 1, to Sec. 8 of the Act, requires a minor not being a member of a family unit to furnish a declaration through the guardian and this can only apply to a divided minor of a Hindu Joint family. He also referred to several books on interpretation of Statutes and rulings of various Courts and contended that the Legislative definition cannot overide the substantive provisions of the Act and the legislative intent has to prevail over the legislative definition and therefore a restricted meaning should be given to the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of family unit in section 3 (f) of the Act, as covering only undivided minor sons.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no ambiguity in the definition of ''family unit'' in section 3 (f) of the Act, and the definition does not quality the expression ''minor sons'' either as divided or undivided and therefore the said expression takes in all minors sons, either divided or undivided, that the explanation to section 4 makes it clear that the lands held by all the members of, the family unit, should be aggregated for determining the ceiling area, and that there is no conflict between the definition of ''family unit'' and the other provisions of the Act.

He also submitted that the provisions of sections 7 and 17 of the Act cannot be treated as substantive provisions, that they only impose certain limitations and restrictions or prohibitions on transfers and they do not create a confer any substantive rights which conflict with the provisions of the definition of ''family unit'' in section 3 (f) of the Act, that the family unit as defined in the Act is an artificial unit created for the purpose of the Ceiling law, that there is no ambiguity in the language of section 3 (f) nor is there any conflict or repugnancy between the provisions of Section 3 (f) and the other provisions of the Act, that the Ceiling Act does not nullify any partition effected prior to 2-5-1972 but even if partition was made prior to the said date, the divided minor son is deemed to member of the family unit as defined in the Act, that the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act make it clear that even a divided minor son has to be treated as a member of the family unit as defined it the Act that Explanation 1, to 8, applies only to a minor who is not a member of a family unit, and that the said explanation is not applicable to a divided minor who is a member of the family unit as defined in section 3 (f) of the Act.

In order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating to the fixation of ceiling on agricultural holdings and taking over of surplus lands and to provide for the matters connected there with. Section 2 declares that the Act has been enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India This Act has been included as tem 67 in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India by the Constitution 34th Amendment Act of 1974. The Constitutional validity of this Act was upheld by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Maddukuri Venkatarao and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, . No contention has been urged before me that any of the provisions of the Act are ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.

"Ceiling area" is defined, as the extent of land specified in section 4

"Family unit" is defined in section 3 (f) as fellows:--

"Family unit" means:--

(i) in the case of an individual who has a "spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters if any;

(ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters.

(iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not and

(iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters.

Explanation--Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring if any shall also he deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member".

"Person" is defined as follows:--

"Person" includes an individual, a family unit, a trustee, a company, a firm, a society or an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

Section 4 which prescribes the "Ceiling area" reads as follows:--

4 (1) The Ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of not more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding.

(2) The ceiling area in the case of a family unit consisting of more than five members shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding plus an additional extent of one fifth of one standard holding for every such member in excess of five, to however that the "ceiling area shall be not exceed two standard holdings.

(3) The ceiling area in the case of every individual who it not a member of a family unit, and in the case of any other person shall be an extent of land equal to one standard holding.

Explanation :--In the case of a family unit, the ceiling area shall be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by all the members of the family unit.

Section 5 prescribes the standard holding for different classes of lands, as mentioned therein.

Now family unit as defined in section 3 (f) clauses (i) to (iv) includes minor sons. The expression, ''minor sons'' is not qualified by the words, divided, or undivided". The plain language of the definition clearly takes, in both divided as well as undivided minor sons. The Legislative intent is clear that the minor sons, whether divided or undivided will form a family unit along with their parent or parents and the unmarried minor daughters. If the farmers of the Act intended that only undivided minor sons should come within the family unit, it would have been expressly so provided in the definition For instance, in the case of minor daughters, it is expressly provided that only unmarried minor daughters fall within the definition of "family unit" Therefore in the absence of any restrictive words qualifying the expressions "minor sons" it is not possible to construe the expression "minor sons" as meaning undivided minor sons. Further the Explanation to section 3 (f) provides that in the case of a married minor son, his wife and off spring shall also be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member. Therefore a minor son whether married or unmarried and whether divided or undivided, is brought within the "family unit".

In section 2 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, ''family'' was defined as follows :--

"Family" means in the case of persons governed by Hindu law, an undivided Hindu family consisting of members entitled under that Law to share in the property held by the family on a partition thereof, and in the case of other persons, a groups of unit the members of the which are by custom or usage joint in estate.

But for the purpose of the present Act ''family'' as defined in the A. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, has been discarded and family unit as defined in the Act has been adopted for the purpose of ceiling legislation The family unit as defined in the Act, is a new concept unknown to the Hindu Law concept of Joint family and it is an artificial Concept and completely differs from Hindu Joint family. The Hindu Joint family under Hindu Law consists of many more members than those specified in ''family unit'' as defined in the Act. This family unit which is an artificial concept has been specially adopted by the Act for the purpose of the Ceiling law. The legislature was fully aware of the Hindu law concept of a Hindu joint family but deliberately chose to adopt an artificial concept of family unit as defined in the Act for the purpose of the Ceiling law. Further the Legislature hat deliberately chosen to bring only some members of the large Hindu joint family into the family unit as defined in the Act. The family unit as defined in the Act has discarded the family as recognised in the personal law other Hindu law or Mohammedan law and also the ordinary notion of a family. On the other hand an artificial concept has been introduced by the definition of ''family unit'' which does not correspond with a natural family as known to personal law. This definition of family unit as applicable to ail persons, whether governed by Hindu law or Mohammedan law or any other law. The definition of ''family unit'' is no doubt an arbitrary and artifical concept but it is a secular concept which has been adopted for the purpose of aggregation of lands after applying the Ceiling law. The definition of ''family unit'' does not interfere with the personal laws and it does not affect the concept of Hindu joint family known to Hindu law not does it affect any severance in status of the members of the Hindu joint family or bring about any division of their properties by metes and bounds.

Moreover the question of partition of joint family properties appear to me to be wholly irrelevant for the purpose of aggregating the lands held by each member of family unit as defined in the Act. For instance, a major son of a Hindu joint family, though undivided, is not treated as a member of the family unit but only as an an individual and he will be entitled to hold one standard holding u/s 4 (3) of the Act. Even the stridhana of the wife or the unmarried minor daughter in which the husband and the minor sons have no rights, have to be aggregated for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of a family unit, wide explanation to section (4).

There may be cases where a family unit may derive benefit by inclusion of a minor son whether divided or not in the family unit. Take a case where a Hindu joint family has no property at all but the father has self acquired property or the mother has stridhana and there are more than two minor sons one unmarried minor daughter in the family unit in such a case, the family unit will be entitled to one standard holding plus an additional extent of 1/5th of one standard holding for every such minor member in excess of five, subject to the limit that it shall not exceed two standard holdings. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted and the expression ''minor sons'' should be construe as divided minor son, in the case mentioned above, if the minor sons had become divided in status from their father, the family unit will not be entitled to the benefit of the additional extent of 1/5th of one standard holding if the number of members of the family unit does not exceed five. There are therefore both advantages as well as disadvantages in giving a restricted meaning as undivided minor sons to the expression ''minor sons'' occurring in the definition of family unit in section 3 (f) of the Act.

Apart from the reasons given above when the Legislature itself had not thought it fit to qualify the expression ''minor sons'' as divided or undivided it is not permissible for the court to supplement or and any such qualifying words to the expression ''minor sons''. The fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel lies in the fact that the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of ''family unit'' is sought to be a construed only with reference to the minor sons in a Hindu joint family governed by the Hindu law. On the other hand the family unit as defined in the Act does not taken note of a natural family or a Hindu joint family but has created an artificial family unit comprising only of a few members of the family like the spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters and omitted the major sons and the unmarried major daughters, and this definition does not take note of the personal laws applicable to the members of the family unit. Therefore on a plain reading of the definition of ''family unit'' and the provisions of section 4 of the Act, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of ''family unit'' in section 3 (f) of the Act would apply only to undived minor sons and not to minor sons who had divided from a Hindu joint family.

It is next contended by the learned counsel that the definition clause in section 3, begins with the expression, ''unless the context otherwise requires'' and therefore the definition should be construed in such a manner that it accords with the intention of the Legislature and gives effect to the provisions of the Act and does not result in defeating the object of the Act. In this context, Sri Parabrahma Sastry, invited my attention to several rulings.

In State of Assam Vs. Ranga Mahammad and Others, it was held that a special meaning might be given to a word because of collection of words in which It figured''.

In Sanjeevayya vs. Election Tribunal Andhra Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1211 it was held that ''it is a well settled rule of construction that the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.

The learned counsel also submitted that the use of the words ''means'' in the definitions of ''family unit'' indicates that the Legislature intended that it should be given an exhaustive meaning and therefore a restricted meaning should given to the expression ''minor sons''.

In Tajmahal Hotel vs. Income Tax Commissioner AIR 1969 A.P., 84 it was observed as follows :--

The Legislature used the word means where it wants to exhaust the significance of the term defined and the word ''includes'' where it intends that while the term defined should retain its ordinary meaning its scope should be widend by specific enumeration of certain matters which its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise so as to make the definition enumerative but not exhaustive.

He also cited rulings with regard to construction of statutes and contended that where two constructions are possible a construction should be placed which is fair and equitable and that with regard to Statute encroaching on rights of subjects, a strict construction should be placed.

Sri K.S. Ramamurthy invited my attention to several passages in Crories Maxwell and V. P. Sarathi on Interpretation of Statutes and several rulings and contended that the Legislative definition cannot be interpreted so as to override the Legislative intention or defeat the object of the Act.

The aforesaid legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. But he contended that in the instant case, there is no ambitiguity about definition of family unit nor does it conflict with the provisions of the other Act. I think this submission of the learned Government Pleader is well founded. I do not think the language employed in the definition of family unit his either ambiguous or vague. It is well settled that where the language employed in the provisions of an Act is plain and unambiguous it is not open to the Court to read into it limitations which are not there with a view to ascertain the probable intention of the Legislature. The intention of the Legislature can only be gathered from the words actually used in the Statute. If the language of the section is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning it is the duty of the Court to adopt that meaning irrespective of the inconvenience that such a construction may produce. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity or vagueness with regard to the expression ''minor sons'' occurring in the definition of ''family unit'' and therefore it is not permissible for the Court to cut down or limit the meaning of the said expression as meaning undivided minor sons.

It is then contended by all the learned counsels that if the expression ''minor sons'' in section 3 (j) of the Act is to be given an extended meaning as including divided minor sons, it will conflict with the other substantive provisions of the Act. In support of this contention the learned counsel invited my attention to the provisions of sections 7 and 17 of the Act and it is therefore necessary to read the provisions of section 7 and 17 of the Act here.

7 (1) Where on or after the 24th January, 1971 but before the notified date, any person has transferred whether by way of sale, gift, usufructuary mortgage, exchange settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever any land held by him or created a trust of any land held by him then the burden of proving that such transfer or creation of trust has not been effected in anticipation of and with a view to avoiding or defecting the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holdings, shall be on such person, and where he has not so proved, such transfer or creation of trust, shall be disregarded for the purpose of the computation of the ceiling area of such person.

Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) any alienation made by way of sale, lease for a period exceeding six years, sift, exchange, usufructuary mortgage or otherwise any partition effected or trust or created of a holding or any part thereof, or any such transaction effected in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority, on or after the 2nd May, 1972 and before the notified date, in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 shall be null and void.

(1) No person whose holding and no member of a family unit, the holding of all the members which in the aggregate is in excess of the ceiling area as on the 24th January 1971 or at any time thereafter, shall on or after the notified date, alienate his holding or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, settlement, surrender, usufructuary, mortgage of otherwise or effect a partition thereof, or create a trust or convert an agricultural lands into non-agricultural land, until he or the family unit, as the case may be, has furnished a declaration u/s 8, and the extent of land, if any to be surrendered in respect of his holding or that of his family unit has been determined by the Tribunal and an order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under this Act taking possession of the land in excess of the ceiling area and a notification is published u/s 16, and any alienation made or partition effected or trust created in contravention of this section shall be null and void and any conversion so made shall be disregarded.

For the purposes of determining whether any transaction of the nature referred to the sub-section (1) relation to a lands situated in this state, took place on or after the notified date, the date on which the document relating to such transaction was registered shall, not withstanding anything in section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, be deemed to the date on which the transaction took place, whether such document was registered within or outside the State.

The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to therein in execution of a decree or order of a Civil court or of any award of order of any other authority.

Section 7 (1) merely provides that where a transfer was made by way of sale, gift etc., on or after 24-1-1971 the burden of proving that the said transfer has not been effected in anticipation of or with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to a reduction in the ceiling on agricultural holding shall be on the person who has effected the transfer. On the other hand section 7 (2) provides that any alienation made by way of sale, lease etc., including a partition on or after 2-5-1972 and before the notified date to, 1-1-1975 in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural lands (Prohibition of Alienation Act, 1972,) shall be null and void, section 17 of the Act prohibits alienations by way of sale lease gift, etc, including partition of any holding or any part thereof sub-sequent to the coming in to force of the Act until a declaration has been filed u/s 8 and the land in excess of the ceiling area has been determined and a notification published u/s 16 of the Act any such alienation made in contravention of the said provision is declared as null and void.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that these provisions indicate that the right to partition prior to 2-5-1972 is not affected that only future transfers are nullified and it a minor son of a Hindu Joint family validly effects a partition prior to 2-5-1972, it is valid and binding and he cannot be treated as a member of the family unit, and if on the hand other he is to be treated as a member of the family unit as defined in Sec. 3 (f) it will have the effect of nullifying the provisions of sections 7 (1) and (2) and 17 of the Act.

But I do not find any merit in this submission firstly it in fallacious is treat the provisions of sections 7 and 17 as substantive provisions These sections only impose certain limitations or restrictions on transfers subsequent to 24-1-1971, 2-5-1972 and 1-1-1975 the date on which the Act came into force, and they are merely ancillary and incidental provisions made in the Act for the purpose of effective implementation of the Ceiling Law Secondly the sections do not confer or create any rights. The right to claim partition which a minors on of a Hindu Joint family has, is conferred by his personal law and not by the Ceiling Act which does not in any way affect or alter the provisions of Hindu law. Moreover, I do not think by giving wide meaning to the expression ''minor sons'' as taking in both divided and undivided sons of a Hindu Joint family it will either conflict with or be repugnant to the provisions of section 7 (1) or 17 of the Act or that it will in any way defeat the objections or policy of the Act.

On the other hand the Explanation to Sec. 4 and the provisions of section 5 (3) and (4) of the Act make it clear that no restriction can be placed upon the expression ''minor sons''. The Explanation to section 4 provides that in the case of a family unit, the ceiling area shall be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by ail the members of the family unit. Therefore even if there was a partition prior to 2-5-1972 between the members of a Hindu joint family which consists of minor sons, still for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the family unit, the lands held by the minor sons on partition have to be aggregated with the lands held by other members of the family unit. Whether the minor sons goes out of the Hindu joint family by partition or not still for the purpose of determining the Ceiling area be is treated as a member of the family unit as defined in the Act and the lands held by him have also to be aggregated with the lands of the other members of the family unit for fixing the extent of the ceiling area of the family unit.

This is also clear from the provisions of section 5(3) and (4) of the Act which read as follows:--

54 (3) In computing the holding of an individual who is not a member of a family unit, but is a member of a joint family, the share of such an individual in the lands held by the joint family shall be taken into account and aggregated with the lands, if any held by him separately and for this purpose, such share shall be deemed to be the extent of lands which would be allotted to such individual had there been a partition of the lands held by the joint family.

(4) In computing the holding of the member of a family unit who is also a member of a joint family, the share of such member in the lands held by the joint family shall be taken into account and aggregated with the lands, if any held by him separately and for this purpose such share shall be deemed to be the extent of land which would be allotted to such member, had there been a partition of the lands held by the joint family.

In view of the aforesaid provisions of the share held by an individual or by "member of a family unit in the joint family properties has to be taken into account in computing the holding of the individual or the family unit as the case may be. These provisions also make it clear that whether there is a division or not in the joint family the share of each member of a joint family either major or minor has to be taken into account in computing the holding of the individual of member of the family unit as the case may be for the purpose of the Ceiling Law. These provisions further land support to the view that the "family unit" is not in any way affected whether is partition or not amongst the members of a Hindu joint family prior to 2-5-1972 and that even if a partition took place prior to the said date, the minor sons have to be treated as members of the family unit for the purpose on determining the ceiling area of the family unit.

Reliance is placed upon Explanation 1 to 8 of the Act. Section 8 (1) requires "every person whose holding on the notified date together with any land transferred by him on or after the 24th January 1971, exceeds the specified limit, shall furnish a declaration in respect of his holding together with land so transferred to the Tribunal.

Explanation 1 to sec. 8 read as follows:--

Whether the land is held or is deemed to be held by a minor lunatic, an idiot or other person subject to like disability not being a member of the family unit, the declaration shall be furnished by the gardian, manager or other person in charge of the property of such person, and whether the land is held or is deemed to be held by a company, firm association or other corporate body, the declaration shall be furnished by any person competent to act for such company, firm, association or corporate body in this behalf.

Under this Explanation where a land is held or deemed to be held by a minor or lunatic or an idiot or other person subject to like disability not being a member of the family unit, the declaration should be furnished by the guardian, manager or other person in charge of the property of such a person. The argument of all the learned counsel is that the explanation postulates the existence of a family unit, and such a minor can only be a divided minor and therefore the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of family unit, should be interpreted as not covering a divided minor son.

I do not think there is any force in this submission Explanation 1 to section 8, merely indicates as to who should file the declaration in the case of a minor lanatic, an idiot or other person under a like disability where such person is not a member of a family unit. In the case of such a person when he is a member of a family unit, it is explanation II to section 8 that applies, Explanation II provides that where the land is held by a family unit, the declaration shall be furnished by a person in management of the property of such family unit. Further as already field by me even a divided minor son will fall within the family unit as defined in the Act and therefore the minor referred to explanation I to section 8, is a minor who does not belong to a family unit. In other words, the said minor must be a minor holding property as an individual and without belonging to any family unit. Moreover the minor in Explanation 1 can be a minor son or even a minor daughter who does not belong to a family unit. In the case of a lunatic or an idiot or other person under a like disability who is a member of a family unit it is the person in management of the property of the family unit to that has to furnish the declaration, but where he is not a member of the family unit, then only his guardian or manager or other person in charge of the property that should furnish the declaration. For all the foregoing persons, I do not think either the contest in which the explanation ''minor sons'' occurs in the definition of family unit or the other provisions of the Act warrant that a restricted meaning should be given to the expression ''minor sons'' in the definition of family unit in section 3(f) as applicable only to undivided minor sons. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the shares of the minor sons of the declarant obtained under the partition deed Ex. A-1 should be excluded in computing the holding of the declarant is therefore rejected. In the result the Revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200/-.