ORDER: — In this revision one V. Govindasamy and his wife, G. Gnanambal Ammal are the petitioners. This revision arises out of proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act. ‘The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) of Mayuram, initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the Act, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land)Act (XVII of 1970). The holdings held by the petitioners on the relevant date are as follows: Ordinary acres. Standard acres. V. Govindasamy 12.79½ 7.13 G. Gnanambal Ammal. 26.48½ 15.02 Total: &151;&151;&151; 39.28 &151;&151;&151; &151;&151;&151; 22.15 &151;&151;&151; The draft statement under section 10 (1) of the Act was published after satisfying the formalities contemplated under the Act and it was proposed to declare an extent of 8.03 ordinary acres equivalent to 5.02 standard acres as surplus from the above holdings. V. Govindasamy made objections to the draft statement and he put forth two objections. The first one is that his family consists of 9 members, viz., 6 sons and 2 unmarried daughters and as such, his family is entitled to hold 30 standard acres. The second objection is that pursuant to an agreement of sale entered into on 2nd January, 1970 with one Ghouse Maracair of Eduthakatti Sathanur, he has parted with possession of 8.43½ ordinary acres and hence the said extent should be excluded from the holdings of the family. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) of Mayuram, considered these objections and they were repelled by him. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Authorised Officer, the petitioners herein perferred C.M.A. No. 12 of 1973 which was heard and disposed of by the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) of Mayuram, and the Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal. However, it gave a direction to the Authorised Officer to give an option to the parties as contemplated under section 10 (3) and (4) of the Act. The present revision is directed against the orders of the Land Tribunal. 2. Mr. V. Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners, is not pressing the contention with reference to the agreement of sale and parting with of possession of an extent of 8.43½ ordinary acres and the learned counsel urges in main the contention with regard to the strength of the family and the right of the family to hold 30 standard acres. Mr. V. Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners, is not pressing the contention with reference to the agreement of sale and parting with of possession of an extent of 8.43½ ordinary acres and the learned counsel urges in main the contention with regard to the strength of the family and the right of the family to hold 30 standard acres. To appreciate this contention raised, it will be advantageous if the relevant provisions of the Act are extracted; Section 5(1) (a) and (5) read as follows: “5. Ceiling area. — (1) (a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3-A) and (3-C) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every person (other than the institutions referred to in clauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII) the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members shall be 15 standard acres; (b) The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than 5 members shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII, be 15 standard acres together with an additional 5 standard acres for every member of the family in excess of five.” 3. The expressions used in the above sections are ‘person’ and ‘family’. The expressions used in the above sections are ‘person’ and ‘family’. ‘Person’ has been defined by section 3(34) as follows: “ ‘Person’ includes any company, family, firm, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not; or any private trust or public trust.” Since ‘person’ includes family, the definition of ‘family’ in section 3 (14) may be extracted, which is as follows: " ‘family’ in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her — (i) minor sons and unmarried daugthers, and (ii) minor grandsons and unmarried granddaughters in the male line, whose father and mother are dead." Section 5 (5) lays down the maximum extent that could be held by a family as follows: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) and in Chapter VIII the total extent of the land held or deemed to be held by any family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres." Section 5 (2) reads as follows: "(2) For the purposes of this section, all the lands 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 held by the family." Section (5) (4) is to the following effect: "(4) (a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres the female member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under subsection (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres: Provided that where any extent of stridhana land hold by a female member is included in the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (I) and in case where the extent so included is — (i) 10 or more than 10 standard acres, she shall not be entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent so included; or (ii) less than 10 standard acres, she may hold in addition to the extent so included an extent of stridhana land which together with the extent so included, shall not exceed 10 standard acres. (b) Where the extent of stridhana land held under clause (a) by any female member of a family consisting of more than five members — (i)is 5 or more than 5 standard acres, she shall not be deemed to be a member of that family for the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1); or (ii) is less than 5 standard acres, the additional extent of 5 standard acres allowed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be reduced by the same extent as the extent of stridhana land so hold.‘‘ Section 3 (42) defines ‘stridhana land’ as follows: " ‘Stridhana land’ means any land held on the date of the commencement of this Act by any female member of a family in nor own name." The reasoning of the Authorised Officer can be well gathered from the following observation in his order: "There is no force in the argument put forth, by the counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to hold 30.00 standard acres of land since his family members are 9 and no surplus can be declared under section 1, in the draft statement as already published. The proposed surplus shown in the draft statement published under section 10 (i) of the Act has been carved out under section 6 i.e., from the lands held by the lady member, i.e., Gnanambal, wife of Govindasamy as on 15th February, 1970. The number of members in the family has nothing to do with the calculation of ceiling in respect of the land held by the female members of the family since, in this case the surplus arrived at is from the lands held by the female member as on 15th February, 1970, and since only an extent of land held by her, i.e., 5.02 standard acres of lands is over and above 10.00 standard acres, the extent of lands that can be allowed to the female member as stridhana, there is no reason to interfere with the surplus declared already in the draft statement prepared under section 10 (i)." The Land Tribunal also has proceeded on the same trend and observes that the first appellant’s (the first petitioner) family is entitled to hold 30 standard acres and the second appellant (the second petitioner) can hold only lands not exceeding 10 standard acres. 4. 4. The question that comes up for consideration in the revision is, whether this reasoning of the forums below can be sustained on a proper construction of the provisions of the Act. The definition of ‘person’ includes a family and ‘family’ means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters, etc. Section 5 (2) lays down that for the purposes of section 5, all the lands 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 held by the family. Section 5 (4) proviso speaks about a case where an extent of stridhana land held by a female member is included in the extent of land the family is entitled to hold under subsection (1). From a reading of the above provisions, it is not possible to say that a female member should be assessed separately thereby excluding her from the fold of the family, whenever that female member holds . stridhana land. The definition of ‘family’ takes in the wife and by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 6, all the lands including stridhana lands held individually by the members of the family shall be deemed to be held by the family. The husband, the wife and the children within the meaning of section 3 (14) of the Act can go together. Sub-section (4) of section 5 speaks about a concession given to a female member in respect of stridhana land. But it cannot be taken that whenever stridhana land is held by a famale member of a family, she will have to be assessed independently without reference to the family. Such a construction does not appear to be tenable on a reading of the provisions of the Act. If the above principle is kept in mind, I find that the forums below have not adverted to the same and they have acted under the impression that the female member has to be assessed separately. If the husband, the first petitioner, the wife, the second petitioner and the children, who are stated to be 9 and about which there is no dispute raised, constitute a family then under section 5 (1), read with section 5 (5) the family will be entitled to hold 30 standard acres. If the husband, the first petitioner, the wife, the second petitioner and the children, who are stated to be 9 and about which there is no dispute raised, constitute a family then under section 5 (1), read with section 5 (5) the family will be entitled to hold 30 standard acres. In the present case, the total holding comes to 22.15 standard acres. If this is so, the holdings come within the ceiling area and there is no warrant for declaring and taking any surplus. 5. Shri K. Venkatasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, brings to the notice of this Court the judgment of Mohan, J., in K.C. Periakolandai Raja v. The State of Madras by the Collector of South Arcot at Cuddalore and the Authorised Officer, Laud Reforms, Cuddalore.1 Though the facts of the case are not clear from the order of the learned Judge the learned judge states as follows: “I think the view of the Court below that the wife’s holding cannot be computed for the purpose of fixing the ceiling of the holding of the petitioner is corect because, admittedly she owns 25 standard acres in her name. Her holding can be computed along with that of the petitioner only if she holds 10 standard acres or less. Therefore, I am unable to see merits in this revision which is hereby dismissed. No costs.” A reading of the above order seems to convey that the holding of the wife can be computed along with that of the husband only if she holds 10 standard acres or less. Since I am obliged to take a different view, as could be seen from the discussion set out above, I feel that the ambiguities, if any, will stand cleared by a decision of a Bench of this Court. In this view, I direct the paper be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice for orders for posting before a Division Bench. 6. In pursuance of the above order, this petition coming on or hearing before this Court on Tuesday, the 11th July, 1978, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. In this view, I direct the paper be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice for orders for posting before a Division Bench. 6. In pursuance of the above order, this petition coming on or hearing before this Court on Tuesday, the 11th July, 1978, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Sridevan, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent and this case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order: The Order of the Court was delivered by Ramanujam, J.—This revision petition was initially heard by Nainar Sundaram, J., but as the learned Judge did not agree with the view expressed by Mohan, J., in K.C. Periakolandai Raja v. State of Madras1 which was relied on by the respondent, he referred the matter for an authoritative ruling of a Division Bench. 8. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram, initiated proceedings for the fixation of the ceiling area of the petitioners herein who are husband and wife under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act LVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, ‘as amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act XVII of 1970. The holdings held by each of the petitioners on the relevant date were as follows:— Ordinary acres. Standard acres. V. Govindasamy 12.79½ 7.13 G. Gnanambal Ammal. 26.48½ 15.02 Total: &151;&151;&151; 39.28 &151;&151;&151; &151;&151;&151; 22.15 &151;&151;&151; In the draft statement issued under section 10 (1) of the Act, it was proposed to declare an extent of 8.03 ordinary acres equivalent to 5.02 standard acres as surplus from the above holdings. The first petitioner filed his objections to the draft statement contending (1) that his family consists of 9 members, namely, himself, his wife, five sons and two unmarried daughters and as such, his family is entitled to hold 30 standard acres and (2) that in pursuance of an agreement of sale entered into on 2nd January, 1970 with one Chouse Maracair, he had parted with possession of 8.43 ordinary acres and hence the said extent should be excluded from the holding of the family. The Authorised Officer repelled those objections and declared an extent of 5.02 standard acres as surplus as proposed in the draft statement. 9. The Authorised Officer repelled those objections and declared an extent of 5.02 standard acres as surplus as proposed in the draft statement. 9. Aggrieved by the decision of the Authorised Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 12 of 1973 to the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Mayuram. That appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 10. The second of the objections taken by the petitioners before the Authorised Officer and before the Land Tribunal has not been pressed before us and we are left only with the first contention. 11. As regards the first contention, it is submitted by Mr. V. Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Authorised Officer has erroneously treated 5.02 standard acres out of the lands owned by the second petitioner as surplus, overlooking the fact that the second petitioner being the wife of the first petitioner will have to be taken as a member of his family, that lands held by both of them have to be treated as one unit for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the family, and that if the lands owned by both the petitioners are taken as forming one unit, then the family of the petitioners consisting of 9 members is entitled to hold 30 standard acres as per the provisions of the said Act. 12. To appreciate the said contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Act. “Person” has been defined by section 3 (34) of the Act as follows: “‘Person’ includes any company, family, firm, society or association of individuals whether incorporated or not; or any private trust or public trust.” Since ‘person’ has been defined as including in family, we have to see the definition of family. Family has been defined section 3(14) as follows: — “‘family’ in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her (i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and (ii) minor grandsons, and unmarried grand-daughters in the male line whose father and mother are dead.” Section 3 (42) defines ‘stridhana land’ as follows: — “‘Stridhana land’ means any land held on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female member of a family in her own name”. Section 5(1) (a) and (6) which fixes the ceiling area of every person are extracted below: “5. Ceiling area: (1) (a) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), and (3-G) and of Chapter VIII, the ceiling area in the case of every person (other than the institutions referred to in clauses (c) and (d) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A). (3-5), (3-C), (4) and (5) and of Chapter VIII the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members shall be 15 standard acres; (b) The ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of more than five members shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3-A), (3-B), (3-C), (4) and (5) and Chapter VIII, be 15 standard acres together with an additional 5 standard acres for every member of the family in excess of five.” Section 5(2) which is quite relevant for the purpose of the present discussion is extracted below: ‘‘(2) For the purpose of this section, all the lands 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 held by the family.“ Section 5(4) so far as it is relevant is as follows: — ”4(a). Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), where the stridhana land held by any female member of a family together with the other land held by all the members of that family is in excess of 15 standard acres, the female member concerned may hold in addition to the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres: Provided that where any extent of stridhana land held by a female member is included in the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (I) and in case where the extent so included is: — (i) 10 or more than 10 standard acres, she shall not be entitled to bold any stridhana land in addition to the extent so included ; or (ii) less than 10 standard acres, she may hold in addition to the extent so included an extent of stridhana land which together with the extent so included, shall not exceed 10 standard acres. (b) Where the extent of stridhana land held under clause (a) by any female member of a family consisting of more than five members. (i) is 5 or more than 5 standard acres, she shall not be deemed to be a member of that family for the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1); or (ii) is less than 5 standard acres, the additional extent of 5 standard acres allowed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be reduced by the same extent as the extent of stridhana land so held." Section 5 (5) lays down the maximum extent that could be held by a family and that provision is as follows: — "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) and in Chapter VIII the total extent of the land held by any family shall in no case exceed 30 standard acres." A conjoint reading of the above provisions of the Act clearly indicates that a family, which comes under the definition of a person referred to in section 5 which fixes the ceiling area, can hold a basic extent of 15 standard acres plus five additional acres for every member of the family in excess of 5 subject to the ceiling of 30 standard acres fixed under section 5(5). In this case there is no dispute that the petitioners’ family consists of 9 members. Therefore, their family is entitled to hold the maximum extent of 30 standard acres. According to section 5 (2) for purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family under that section, all the lands held individually by the members of the family shall be deemed to be held by the family. As per this provision, the lands held by each of the petitioners has to be clubbed together and treated as the holding of the family. Admittedly the total extent held by both the petitioners is only 22.15 standard acres and that is less than the maximum extent of 30 standard acres which their family can hold as per section 5(5). The Authorised Officer has however, treated the wife’s holding as a separated unit and after deducting 10 standard acres which she is entitled to hold as stridhana, the balance has been treated as surplus in her hands. 13. The Authorised Officer has however, treated the wife’s holding as a separated unit and after deducting 10 standard acres which she is entitled to hold as stridhana, the balance has been treated as surplus in her hands. 13. We do not see how the second petitioner who is admittedly a member of the family as per the definition of ‘family’ in section 3 (14) can be treated as separate unit for purpose of fixation of ceiling area under section 5. Section 5 (4) clearly provides that where the stridhana land held by any female member of the family together with the other land held by the other members of the family is in excess of 15: standard acres, the female member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of the land which the family is entitled to hold under subsection (1), stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres. According to the proviso to section 5 (4) (a) where the stridhana land held by a female member is included in the extent of land which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1) and the extent of stridhana land so included is more than 10 standard acres, then the female member is not entitled to hold any stridhana land in addition to the extent so included. In view of this provision the second petitioner is not entitled to claim any additional extent over and above the maximum ceiling area of 30 standard acres which the family is entitled to hold under section 5(1). But that does not mean that the second petitioner can be separated from the family and her ceiling area can be fixed separately apart from that of the family. In the light of the provisions set out above, it is not possible to say that the ceiling area of a female member should be fixed separately merely because she holds land apart from the lands held by the other member of the family and thereby exclude her from the fold of the family. In the light of the provisions set out above, it is not possible to say that the ceiling area of a female member should be fixed separately merely because she holds land apart from the lands held by the other member of the family and thereby exclude her from the fold of the family. Section 5 (4) merely gives a concession to a femalmember of the family, and merely because a female member is not entitled to that concession, she cannot be treated as being separate from the family for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family, as otherwise, it will lead to the absurd result that whenever a stridhana land is held by a female member a family whatever its extent may be, her holding will have to be treated independently without reference to the family and such a position is not tenable on a reading of the provisions of the Act. 14. Mr. K. Venkataswami, learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the decision of Mohan, J., in C.R.P. No. 904 of 1974 and contended that as per the said decision, the wife’s holding can be clubbed with that of the husband only if she holds 10 standard acres or less. In the case before the learned Judge the wife held 25 standard acres in her own name and that was not computed along with that of the husband. When such a separate treatment of the holding of the wife was questioned, Mohan, J., observed as follows: — “I think the view of the Court below, that the wife’s holding cannot be computed for the purpose of ceiling of the holding of the petitioner, is correct because, admittedly, she owns 25 standard acres in her name. Her holding can be computed along with that of the petitioner only if she holds 10 standard acres or less. Therefore, I am unable to see merits in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed.” The above observations of the learned Judge seem to convey that the holding of the wife can be clubbed along with that of the husband only if she holds 10 standard acres or less and not when she holds more than 10 standard acres. Therefore, I am unable to see merits in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed.” The above observations of the learned Judge seem to convey that the holding of the wife can be clubbed along with that of the husband only if she holds 10 standard acres or less and not when she holds more than 10 standard acres. We do not see any support for the view taken by the learned Judge from the provisions of the Act On the other hand the proviso to section 5 (4) seems to suggest that even if the lands held by a female member exceed 10 standard acres, the same can be included in the holding of the family, but in that event the female member will not be entitled to hold any extra extent as stridhana land in addition to the extent included in the family’s holding. A female member of a family shall not be deemed to be a member of that family only in cases coming under clause (b) of section 5 (4), that is, only when the additional extent which the female member is entitled to hold as stridhana under section 5 (4) exceeds 5 standard acres and not in other cases. We therefore, disagree with the view taken by Mohan, J., that the holding of a female member can be computed along with that of the other members of the family only if she holds 10 standard acres or less. 15. In this view the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the petitioners’ holding is declared to be within the ceiling area. We hold that there is no warrant for declaring any extent as surplus from their holdings. 16. In the result the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.