A.G. VARADARAJULU AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 23-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
A.G. VARADARAJULU AND ANR. 
l' 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, 1961 as 
stood after Amending Act 17170 which came in to force on 15.2.1970 and 
before Amending Act, 37172. 
Section 21 A rlw Section 3 (42) : Non obstante clause-Whether intended 
lo override anything in section 3 (42)-Held, No-The subject mailer of 
enacting part of Section 21 A does not have any connection with subject 
mailer of section 3 (42). 
D 
Section 3 (42) : 'Slridhana land'-lnterpretation of-It is not 
permissible lo introduce principles relating to maintenance of a wife or 
mother into interpretation of the word. 
Section 3 (19) rill' 3 (42): 'Holding'-Whether, mere existence of right 
E to maintenance of a female against joint family property as on the date of 
commencement of the Act, be treated as property being held as on that date-
Held, No-The word is used in the sense that the female must be in possession 
of the land as owner or ll'ith some element of title on that date. 
Interpretation of Statute 
Definition Clause-In land ceiling laws-
F Interpretation of-Not Permissible 10 resorl to personal laws, unless the 
definitions in land ceiling fall's themselves refer to personal laws. 
Hindu Law 
Right to proper(r-Of wife or mo/her in Hindu Joint 
Family Property-Held, does no/ basically have a share in the property and 
she has only right lo maintenance-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955---Hindu 
G Succession Act, 1956-Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act, 1956. 
Words & Phrases : 'Stridhana land' & 'holding '--Meaning of-In 
context of-Tamil Nadu land Reforms Act, 1961. 
In a partjtion deed dated 24.9.1970 between the second appellant (wife 
H of first appellant) and the son of the appellants, 36.74 acres of land was 
390 
t 
A.G. VARADARAJULU v. STATE 
391 
allotted by the son to the second appellant to her towards her right to A 
maintenance. 
The Authorised Officer while computing the admissible ceiling area 
of appellant No. I, included the 36.74 acres land as holding of the first 
appellant on the ground that, though the partition deed dated 24.9.1970 was 
a valid document, since it was executed between 15.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 as B 
permitted by Section 21 A, but since second appellant was not in possession 
of the land at the time of commencement of the Act, i.e., on 15.2.1970 as 
required by section 3(42), the land could not be treated as her Stridhana. He 
therefore held that no part of the land could be excluded from the holding 
of the first appellant even to the extent permitted by Section 5(4). 
C 
final notification was published in the Gazette to that effect. A revision 
was preferred by both the appellants before the Land Commissioner which 
was rejected. 
Appellants filed writ petition against the order of the Commissioner, D 
which was transferred to Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate 
Tribunal, and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that if the partition 
deed dated 24.9.1970 was deemed to be valid under Section 21A, it must be 
held that because of non obstante clause in Section 21A, the conditions laid E 
down in Section 31421 for treating the land as stridhana land could not apply 
and therefore it was not necessary that the land covered by the partition deed 
should be held by the female on the date of commencement of the Act i.e., 
on 15.2.1970. It was alternatively contended that it must be held that second 
appellant was holding the land even from 15.2.1970 as her right to F 
maintenance was existing on that date as per Hindu Law, even though the 
right to maintenance crystallised in to the land on 24.9.1970. 
The respondent State contended that non-obstante Clause in Section 
21A does not override Section 3(42), and that mere existence of right to 
maintenance against joint family property as on 15.2.1970 cannot be treated G 
as held by the second appellant, and it must be established that she was in 
• 
Ji' 
possession of the property as owner and in her own name as on 15.2.1970. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The non-obstante clause in Section 21A of the Tamil Nadu H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
L~nd Refrains Act was not intended to override anything in Section 3(42) ... 
Section 21 A refers specifically to Section 22 of the Act, but with regard to 
other provisions of the Act, it is silent. It say

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.