STATE OP MAHARASHTRA versus NARAYAN RAO SHAM RAO DESHMUKH & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 19-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OP MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
NARAYAN RAO SHAM RAO DESHMUKH & ORS~ 
March 19, 1985 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA,~].] 
Maharathtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings} Act, 1961, 
Sections 2( 11) 2(22) and 6-Scope o/.-Whether a female whiJ inherits a~ 
share in a joint family property by.rea:ion of the death of a .male member of~ 
the family automatically -ceases to a member of the joint family by virt_ue of the 1 
proviso to Section 6 of the Land Ceiling Act read with explanation I thereto, 
entitling her to a sepa1ate unit-Features- of Hindu Undivided Family and· J 
coparcenary explained. 
· :i 
. Sham Rao Bhagwant Rao Deshmukh, his son Narayan Rao_ Sham Rao 
Deshmukh, his wife Suloc.hanabai and his mother Gangabai alias T~ibai were 1 
members of a joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. 
The said· .family owned extensive property which included agricultural lands · · 
situated in fourteen viUages. Shafi Rao died on June 15, 1957 after the coming,,. 
into force: of the Hindu S:uccession Act, 1956, and on his death his interest 
in the coparcenary property devolved on his son, wife and mother in equal 
shares under .Section 6 of the Ceiling Act, such interest bein& the share that / 
would have been allotted to· him if a partition of the family property had takeri ' 
place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he- was entitled· to 
claim partition or not. 
According to the Jaw governing the above family which 1 
was governed by the Bombay School under which the mother also was. entitled 'I 
a share at a partition between her husband and her son equal to that of her 
son one-third shire in the family property could have been allotted to the 
share of Shafi· Rao immediately before his death had a partition taken· place. 
That one-third share devolved in equal shares On Narayan RaO, Siit0ch3.nab3J · 
and Gangabai alias Taibai each inheriting one-ninth share of- the fanlily pf<»J 
perty. They, however, continued to live together enjoying the family properties 
as before. 
As required by the Maharashtra Agricultural Ceiling Act which 
came into effect on January 26, 1962, Narayan Rao filed a declaration on be-
half of himself, his mother, and his grandmother before the Sub-Divisional 
Officer. Saoner stating that they held in all 305.49 acres of agricultural land 
and that under a family arrangeplent entered into on March 30, 1957 they w~re~ 
holdil'lg the· lands in distinct and separate shares, Narayan Rao holding'1 one-· 
half share and the other two holding one-fourth share each and that each of 
them was entitled to retain 96 acres which was the maximum extent of land 
which a person in that area could hold after the Ceiling Act came into force. 
\. 
+
MAHARASHTRA v. N. R. S, RAO, 
359 
_The Sub•Divisional Officer after enquiry held (i) that the alleged family l;ettle-
~m~t was not true ; (ii) Narayan Rao, his mothe.r and his grand-mother were. 
joint in estate and constituted a family. within the meaning of that expression 
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act; (iii) the family could not, there~ 
fore, hold agricultural land in excess of one unit of the Ceiling area ; (iv)- the 
'f~ily was entitled to 96 acres of land only out of 304.57 acres held by it on 
·the appointed day ; (v) as the family had alienated after August 4, 1959 about 
. 44 actes Of land in contravention of Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, it could 
·retain oi;IIY 51.16 acres ; ·and (vi) the remaining extent of land measuring in all 
· 222;32 acres must be. declared as surPius land which had to be surrendered 
· under the Ceiling Act. · 
' 
_ 
' Aggrieved by the decision of the Sub· Divisional Officer, Narayan Rao, 
.,hi~ mother.and grand·mother filed an appeal before the Maharashtra· Revenue 
" Tribunal questioning the 'correctness of the said decision and that appeal was 
· dismissed. 
A.gainst the 
dec~ion of the Tribunal they filed a petition before 
r the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the .. Constitution. 
The High 
Cou.rt accepted th~ contention that· since the one· third interest in the family 
. -property which could have been allotted to the- share of Sham Rao had he 
· demanded a partition immediately before 'his death had devolved in equal 
shares on his heirs that is his wife, mother and son, the surviving members of the 
: ·riuniiy ccitsed to' hold the family property as members of a family and, there· 
fo~e. each of·them was ent

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