KATTITE VALAPPIL PATHUMMA AND ORS. versus THE TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 19-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
--
KAITITE VALAPPIL PATHUMMA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1997 
[K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Sections 2(4), 82 Explanation 
1-Declaralit having three wives and ten children-Detennination of ceiling 
area-Lands owned by statutory family only to be considered-Held, lands 
owned by other wives and children not to be included in the family. 
C 
Practice and Procedure-Decisions of Courts rendered long 
ag~Should not be interfered with unless it is manifestly wrong or unfair. 
The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased M, a D 
dedarant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The declarant had 
opted his first wife and her minor children as his "statutory family" under 
Section 82 of the Act of 1963. Since the Board directed surrender of 160.54 
acres of land held by the declarant, he filed a Revision in High Court 
wherein the High Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal. There· 
after the B~ard passed a fresh order determining 97.16 acres as surplus. E 
Since the declarant had surrendered 43.20 acres, he was directed . to 
surrender the remaining area. The aforesaid order of the Board was 
challenged in Revision by the declarant and after his death his legal 
representatives viz. the Appellants herein. The Appellants contended 
before the High Court that since the declarant had three wives and ten F 
children, each wife and her children shall be deemed to be a separate 
family under Explanation I to Section 82 and therefore, the ceiling in 
respect of each family has to be deducted from the total holding. 
The High Court rejected the contention and held that the properties 
of the husband will not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the G 
ceiling area of the family constituted by other other wives and her children 
and that this position has been made clear by the Explanation, the inten· 
tion of which was to confine the family to the husband and one of the wives 
and their unmarried minor children for the purpose of the ceiling 
provision of the Act. 
H 
175 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
On appeal before this Court, it was contended that the declarant 
having three wives and ten children by the said three wives each wife and 
the children by her shall be deemed to be a separate family under Explana· 
tion I to Section 82 of the Act of 1963, and therefore the ceiling area in 
respect of each separate family has to be deducted from the total holdings 
B 
of the declarant so that the other two wives and their minor children shall 
not be deprived of their iegitimate right to get a larger area. 
The Respondents contended that under Section 82, when a declarant 
husband has more thar,i one wife, the husband can be a member of only 
one such family and not of all families simultaneously and only the lands 
C owned by the husband and the family so chosen by him will be taken into 
account for calculating the ceiling area, that the lands owned or possessed 
by the other wives and members of their families will not be taken into 
account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of the family 
constituted by the husband, one of his wives and unmarried minor children 
D of that wife constitutes the statutory family for the purpose of computing 
the ceiling area, that Section 82 was understood and interpreted in that 
light by the High Court of Kerala ever since the Act came into force, that 
the High . Court has only given effect to the said legal position and a 
different view is not warranted specially at this stage when the law laid 
down by the High Court and followed by it in the impugned judgment has 
E 
held the field for more than two decades. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court that only the lands owned 
F 
by the husband and the family chosen by him will be taken into account 
for calculating the ceiling area of a family, is justified. The land owned and 
possessed by the other wives and members of their families will not be 
taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of 
the statutory family constituted by the husband as aforesaid. (184-E] 
G 
2. It is not permissible to treat the other wives and their children as 
separate families and then to_ deduct that ceiling area for each of such 
family from the total holding of the declarant husband. [184-F] 
Kesava Menon v. State of Kera/a & A11r., (1976) K.L.T. 40

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