Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner who is the landlord of the holding concerned filed an application for resumption of the holding under S.16 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This petition was filed as I. A. 1312 of 1964 in O. S.60 of 1948 which was instituted by the petitioner against the deceased father of the respondents. Pending the proceedings the respondents' father had died and the respondents were impleaded as his legal representatives as defendants 6 and 7. The allegations in the application for resumption was that the petitioner wanted the resumption of the land held by the father of the respondents for bona fide cultivation of his family consisting of 6 members of which the petitioner is the manager. The petitioner's family has no other properties in its possession. The petitioner had further alleged that the deceased father of the respondents was in possession of the land exceeding the ceiling limit and as such the land in excess of the ceiling limit can be resumed by the petitioner subject to the condition that the lands in his possession do not exceed the ceiling limit. The respondents' joint family is said to be in possession of 33.29 acres of double crop land, 12.34 acres of single crop land and 4.29 acres of paramba. 2. The main contention that the tenant had raised to this application for resumption was that he was not in possession and enjoyment of properties more than the ceiling limit. The properties referred to by the petitioner belong to the undivided Hindu joint family of which the father of the present respondents was the Kartha or the Manager. It was further stated in his objections that the joint family consists of the father and his four adult married sons and on that basis it was contended that the ceiling limit of the joint family in question has to be fixed after ascertaining the total extent of the land which can be held by all the five 'families' constituting the joint Hindu family in question. The bona fide requirement alleged by the petitioner was also disputed. The learned Munsiff after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in the case held in favour of the petitioner and ordered issue of commission to inspect the plot and ascertain the actual extent available for resumption. The bona fide requirement alleged by the petitioner was also disputed. The learned Munsiff after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in the case held in favour of the petitioner and ordered issue of commission to inspect the plot and ascertain the actual extent available for resumption. However on appeal the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Munsiff and held that the joint family of the respondents was not in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The landlord has therefore come up in revision from the order of the District Judge. A learned judge of this Court thought that the question involved in the matter is a fairly serious one for decision by a Division Bench. Therefore it has come up before the Division Bench. 3. What Shri T. M. Krishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended was that even if it is said that the ceiling limit of the joint family can be fixed for the purpose of Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by treating the joint family as a group of separate units and taking the total extent of the properties of these units, that method cannot be adopted for the purpose of S.15,16 and 16A of the Act. He contended that for that purpose the joint family must be treated as a family consisting of the. sole surviving member or two or more members but not exceeding 5 or more than five members as the case may be and the ceiling limit must be fixed as provided in clause (a), (b) or (c) to Sub-s, (1) of S.82 of the Act. Here in view of the fact that the tenant in the case is, as found by the lower appellate court, an undivided joint family, the construction pleaded by him alone is possible according to him, because it may not be justifiable to treat the joint family as divided for the purpose of fixing the ceiling limit and undivided for the purpose of determining the nature of the tenancy. 4. In this connection the following portions in the Act may be noted. "Family" and "Joint Family" are defined in the Act under S.2 clauses (14) and (20). "Family" means husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist. 4. In this connection the following portions in the Act may be noted. "Family" and "Joint Family" are defined in the Act under S.2 clauses (14) and (20). "Family" means husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist. "Joint Family" means a Hindu undivided family, a Marumakkathayam tarwad or tavazhi, an Aliasanthana kutumba or kavaru or a Nambudiri Illam. 5. A "person" is defined as including a joint family. S.16 of the Act is in the following terms: "16. Resumption for personal cultivation from tenant holding more than ceiling area. A landlord (other than a sthani or the trustee or owner of a place of public religious worship) who requires the holding bona fide for cultivation by himself, or any member of his family, may resume from his tenant, who is in possession of land exceeding the ceiling area, the whole or a portion of the holding, subject to the condition that, by such resumption, the total extent of land in the possession of the landlord is not raised above the ceiling area and the total extent of land in the possession of the cultivating tenant is not reduced below the ceiling area. Explanation I.-In this section, references to the ceiling area in relation to the landlord or the tenant shall, where such landlord or tenant is a member of a family, be construed as references to the ceiling area in relation to that family. Explanation II. The provisions of S.82 shall, so far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area for the purposes of this section and S.16A, provided that if no date has been notified under S.83, the date of the application for resumption shall be deemed to be the date notified under S.83." S. 82 which fixed the ceiling area is in the following terms: "82. Ceiling area. Ceiling area. (1) The ceiling area of land shall be, (a) in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a male surviving member, five standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more than seven and half acres in extent; (b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more than five members, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent; (c) in the case of a family consisting of more than five members, ten standard acres increased by one standard acre for each member in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and (d) in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent. (2) For the purpose of this Chapter, all the lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (3) In calculating the extent of land owned or held by a family or an adult unmarried person, the shares of the members of the family or the adult unmarried person, as the case may be, in the lands owned or held (a) by one or more of such members jointly with any person or persons other than a member or members of such family or by such adult unmarried person jointly with any other person or persons; or (b) by a co-operative society or a joint family, shall be taken into account. Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the share of a member of a family or an adult unmarried person in the lands owned or held jointly or by a co-operative society or a joint family shall be deemed to be the extent of land which would be allotted to such member or person had such lands been divided to partitioned, as the case may be, on the date notified under S.83, (4) Where, after the commencement of this Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. (5) The lands owned or held by a private trust or a private institution shall be deemed to be lands owned or held by the person creating the trust or establishing the institution, or if he is not alive, by his successor-in-interest. (6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under S.61 shall be excluded. Explanation I. For the purpose of this section, where a person has two or more legally wedded wives living, the husband, one of the wives named by him for the purpose and their unmarried minor children shall be deemed to be one family; and the other wife or each of the other wives and her unmarried minor children shall be deemed to be a separate family. Explanation II. For the purpose of this section, an adult unmarried person shall include a divorced husband or divorced wife who has not remarried: Provided that if such divorced husband or divorced wife is the guardian of any unmarried minor child, he or she together with such unmarried child shall be deemed to be a family." 6. Acceptance of Shri Nambiar's contention will naturally result in construing the term family occurring in S.82 as a joint family. Mr. Nambiar said that it could be done because the definition section states that the particular word will have meaning as given in the said section unless context otherwise requires. That is so. But it may be noted in S.82 itself, as distinct from the word "Family" the expression "Joint family" is used. Therefore it is impossible to accept Mr. Nambiar's contention from the wording of the said section. That is so. But it may be noted in S.82 itself, as distinct from the word "Family" the expression "Joint family" is used. Therefore it is impossible to accept Mr. Nambiar's contention from the wording of the said section. The word "Family" in that section cannot denote a joint family. The word "Family" is used in the sense it is defined in the Act as meaning husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist. If that be so the lower court is correct in calculating the ceiling area of the joint family on the basis of the ceiling limits of the different families which constitute the joint family. 7. It might also be noted that Explanation II introduced to S.16 of the Act by Amending Act 35 of 1969 states that provisions of S.82, shall as far as may be, apply to the calculation of the ceiling area for the purpose of that section as well as S.16A. It is not disputed before us that the application for resumption has to be disposed of under the provisions of the Act as amended. 8. It is no doubt true that the Act does not lay down any particular mode for calculating the ceiling area of a joint family. In the light of the definition of the word "Family" in the Act a joint family may consist of different "Families". Therefore in computing the ceiling area of the joint family which is the tenant, one has to calculate separately the ceiling area of each of the families constituting the joint family and add up the same, the total so made up being the ceiling area of the tenant. 9. We agree with the learned District Judge and this revision is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Dismissed.