VENGDASALAM PILLAI versus UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 18-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

vENGDASALAM PILLAI 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY 
February 18, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.] 
The PoRdichmy Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1973, 
Sectiocs 2(10), 4 and 7. Explanation IV. 
"Family"- What is-Whether to conform to conctpt of 'joint family' as 
known to Hindu Law-Property held h> minor sons aj"ter partition-Property 
purchased by wife from Sridhanam inco71e-Whether to be lncluded in 'holding' 
for determination of ceiling limit. 
The Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 
A 
B 
c 
1973 was passed by lhe Legislative Assembly on October S, 1913. received 
D 
the assent of the President on September 22, t 974 and was publisheJ in 
the Gazette on October 14, 1974. 
The appellant's family consisted of himself, his wife, and five 
children-three daughters and two sons. On March 17, 1970, the appellant 
effected a partition of all his properties by a registered document between 
himself and his two minor sons. The appellant retained 1.85;63 hcictares of 
land for himself. The first son was al'otted 7.10.24 hectares and the 
younger son was allotted 3.54.82 hectares. The appellant's wife purchased 
in 1958, 5.74.87 hectares of land by utilising her Sridhanam money. 
On the failure of the appellant to file a return under '" 7 (I) of the 
Act voluntarily, the Authorised Officer issued a notice in Forl])-4 under 
s. 8( 1) of the Act. The appellant thereupon filed a return on December 12, 
1975 stating that he and his wife were holding only 7.67.91 hectares. 
Thereafter the Authorised Officer issued sep1rate notices to the appellant 
and his wife to file further representations, if any, and to appear before him 
for enquiry. Separate representations were filed reiterating the originol 
stand that the lands allotted to the minor sons under the partition as also 
the lands acquired by the appellant's wife with _the Sridhaoam amounts 
Could not be taken into account while computing the extent of the 
appellant's holding. The Authorised Officer rejected these contentions and 
held that the appellant was holding an extent of 18.26.28 ordinary hectares 
equivalent to 11.48.55 standard heotares of land and he was eligible to 
retain only 8.40.00 standard hectares. 
E 
p 
G 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
926 
SUPREMll couR.t R.llPORts 
ti98Sj i S.C.R. 
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant prererred ao appeal before 
lhe Land Tribunal, which allowed the appeal taking the view that since the 
sons of 1he appellant had become divided from him by tb.e deed of partition 
executed io 1970, Jong prior to the appointed day specified in the Act, and 
the lands standirg in the name of the appellant's wife belonged to her 
independently in her own separate right, there was no jus1ification for 
clubbing together the lands of the appellant with those of his wife and son<;, 
and that the definition of "family'' under s. (IO) of the Act was not 
attracted to thii case, and the appellant was well within the ceiling limit. 
The State-resp::indent challenged the decision of the Land Tribunal 
before the High Court in a Civil Revision P.:itition under s. 50, whlch 
set aside the decision acd restored the Order passed by the Authori~cd 
Officer. The High Court held : (ll that a combined reading of th' defini. 
tion of '"family" cvntaioed in s. 2(10) and the provision contained in 
s. 4 (2), makes clear that notwithstanding any transaction of partition 
entered into prior to the appointed day, the minor sons of a person will 
for the purposes of the Act, b~ treated as m.!mbers of the family of such 
person togeih~r wilh his wife and unmarried daughters. and {2) thJ.t 'in 
computing the extent of the holding of the ''family" as defined in the Act, 
1he separl1.te property of the wife! had to be included by reason of the express 
provision contained ins. 4 (2). 
Djsmissing the appellant's appeal, 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the lands 
standing in the names of the wife aad the two minor sons of the a ppellaot 
as their separate properties were also liable to be included in the holding of 
the appellant for the purpose of fixation of ceiling under s. 4 of the Act. 
[936F] 
2. (i) The provisions of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of 
Ceiling on land) Act 1973 are applicable to all holders of land in the Uaioll 
Territory of Pondicherr1 irrespective of their religion, community etc. It is 
therefore, faJlacious to assume that the "family" refe

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