SMT. SOORAJ AND ORS. versus S.D.O. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 22-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SMT. SOORAJ AND ORS. 
V. 
S.D.O. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN,H.] 
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960-
Sections 2(gg) and 46-Determination of holding of agricultural lands-
Validity of-Civil Suit-Whether maintainable-Held, NO-Definition of 
family-Bhoomiswami rights-Claim of major daughters-Applicability of 
Hindu Succession Act. 
One R who was the Bhoomidar of a total land of 41.49 ac;.·es, died 
in 1960. The Sub-Divisional Officer, a competent authority under the 
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 while 
fixing ceiling on the holding of the agricultural lands, determined that 
the widow of the deceased was entitled to only 10.38 acres of land and 
the rest of the land was declared to be 'surplus'. The appellants, the 
major daughters of the deceased challenged the validity of that order 
by filing a civil suit for declaration. They claimed their shares by 
operation of Hindu Succession Act. 
The trial court dismissed the suit but, on appeal, it was allowed and 
the suit was decreed. In the second appeal, the High Court reversed the 
decree and confirmed the finding of the trial court. 
In this appeal, the appellants contended that Bhoomiswami right 
being inheritable its devolution was governed by Section 164 of the 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, but it should be subject to the 
operation of the provision of the Hindu Succession Act; that by 
operations of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, only the tenancy 
rights had been excluded from the operation and Bhoomiswami rights 
were not tenancy rights and, as such, Section 4(2) had become 
inapplicable; and that the appellants were entitled to succeed to the 
estate of their father by operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Successi'ln 
Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
686 
SOORAJ v. S.D.0. 
687 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants in this case squarely come within 3rd A 
Clause of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 
namely, when the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings 
Act, 1960 seeks to determine the holding of the agricultural lands by 
operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4. 
The applicability of the Act shall stand excluded and should have no B 
effect on the operation of the Agricultural Holding Act, 1960. (689 D) 
1.2. Under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on 
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the surplus land shall stand vested in 
the State. The State has not been impleaded eo nvmine as a party-
defendant to the suit nor notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was issued C 
to the State. The Sub Divisional Officer, who passed the order is only a 
statutory authority under the Ceiling Act. Therefore, without 
impleading the State Government or the Collector and without issuing 
the notice to the Government as enjoined under Section 80, the suit 
itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 
(689 E, F) D 
1.3. Even otherwise also, section 2 (gg) of the Act defines "family" 
means 'husband, wife and their minor children, if any". Admittedly, 
the appellants are major daughters and that, therefore, the only person 
who satisfies the definition of "family" is the widow of the Bhoomidar. 
Accordingly, that determination of the holding as prescribed under the E 
Act has been made by a competent authority. Thereby, the appellants 
cannot get any right de hors the provisions under the Madhyll Pradesh 
Ceiling Act by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu 
Succession Act. (689 G, H) 
2. Section 46 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 creates a bar to maintain any F 
civil suit to impugn any question settled or decision made or inatter 
dealt with by the Competent Authority under the Act. Though none of 
these questions have been raised nor dealt with by the courts below 
since they are pure questions of law untramelled by any question of 
facts this Court has adverted to and found that the suit is not 
maintainable. (690 A, C) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.81 .of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A.No. 354 of 1979. 
. H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R 
A 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
S.S. Khanduja for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.