DARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR. versus CIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 13-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

Dy 
DARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
CIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 1992 
(N.M. KASLIWAL AND K RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960/U.P. Act No. 
20of 1976: 
~ ... 
Ss. 3(7), 5(3), 10(2), 38-A, 38-B-Agricultural lands-Ceiling-Deter- c 
mination of~and held by wife as separate tenure-holder, living separately 
without obtaining a decree for judicial separation-Whether can be included 
-..j.. 
in the land of husband while detennining ceiling area: Family-Whether 
includes wife living separately without obtaining judicial separation . 
... 
D 
Issuance of fresh notice under s.10(2) after enforcement of U.P. Act 
No. 20 of 1976-Validity of-Whether decision in earlier proceedings operates 
as res judicata. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Family', 'iudicial separation', 'iudicially separated wife'-Meaning of. 
E 
A notice under s.10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land 
Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the U.P. Act No.20 of 1976, was issued 
to the appellant; and his objections thereto were dismissed by the 
Prescribed Authority. Thereupon two appeals were tiled ,before the appel-
F 
late autbority-one by the appellant and another by his wife claiming 
i.-
. herself to be the judicially separated wife. It was stated that she was living 
~ 
separately and the appellant gave her certain lands for maintenance in 
respect of which she obtained a decree of injunction restraining the appel-
lant-husband from interfering with her possession; and her ownership with G 
respeet thereto was recognised in consolidation proceedings as well as in 
the earlier ceiling proceedings. 
Both the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority and the 
\ ;--
wril petitions thereupon filed by the appeUants were also dismissed by the 
High Court. 
H 
265 
A 
B 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 2 S.C.R. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appell~nts that (1) 
the lands of the wife, who was living separately, could not be clubbed with 
the lands of the husband even though a judicial separation may not have 
taken place; and (2) the notice issued under s.10(2) was illegal and without 
jurisdiction inasmuch as ceiling area in respect of the appellants had been 
determined before coming into force of Amendment Act No.20 of 1976 and 
the order passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings would operate as res 
judicata. 
Dimissing the appeals, this Court, 
C 
HELD : 1. In view of the provision of s.5(3) of the U.P. Imposition 
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, while determining ceiling area of 
. the land belonging to a person, the land even if owned or possessed by his 
wife in her own right as a separate tenure-holder is not allowed to be 
excluded and would have to be included in the land of the husband treating 
the wife as a member of his family. The only exception has been made in 
D the case of a jud.cially separated wife. The term 'judicially separated' wife 
occurring in s.3(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 cannot be given a meaning to 
include a wife merely living separately from her husband but having not 
obtained a decree for judicial separation, which was necessary under the 
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After obtaining such a decree 
E 
alone it could be recognised as judicial !!eparation. [pp.270E-G; 271B] 
2.1 The provisions of s.38-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on 
Land Holdings Act, 1960 and s.30(3) of U.P. Act No.20 of 1976 authorise 
the Prescribed Authority to issue fresh notice under s.10(2), within a 
period of two years from the date of any order passed in earlier ceiling 
F 
proceedings requiring the tenure holder to furnish such particulars by an 
affidavit in respect of the land held by him and members of his family as 
may be prescribed and considered ne~essary for enforcement of the 
provisions of the Ceiling Act. Section 38-B of Ceiling Act, 1960 clearly 
provides that any finding or decision given before the commencement of 
G these provisions will not operate as a bar for the retrial of such proceeding 
or issue in accordance with the provisionii of the Act as amended from 
time to time. [pp.268F-G; 269B) 
2.2 The High Court was right in holding that if an earlier judgment 
is said to operate as res-judicata in the subsequent proceedings, then all 
H the necessary facts including pleadings of the earlier litigation, must be 
-
DARSHAN v. CIVIL JUDGE (KASLIWAL, J.] 
UJ7 
~ 
placed in the subsequent proceedings; and that the earlier noti

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