JUDGMENT - Padhye R.S. J.- Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Malkapur, District Buldana, in Ceiling Case No. 454/75-76 of village Malegaon (Wadji) decided on 9th of February 1976, declaring that the family unit of petitioner held 21 acres 8 gunthas of land as surplus land, as confirmed in the Ceiling Appeal No. A16-A-4I2 of 1976 decid­ed on 22nd of April 1976 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, petitioner Manaklal, his wife petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kamladevi, his son peti­tioner No. 3 Nandkishore and his minor son Shrikumar petitioner No. 4 have filed this petition. Manaklal's brother Motilal has been joined as respondent No. 2 as he was in cultivating possession of two fields survey No. 12/2 and survey No 29 of village Malegaon and Nurithi has been joined as respondent No. 3 on the allegation that he was in possession of one of the fields as tenant. Petitioner Manaklal filed a return under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as the Ceiling Act) showing that his family unit consisted of him­self, his wife, two sons, who were minor on 2-10-1975 and two minor unmarried daughters. According to this return the family unit held survey Nos. 78 and 79/2 Malegaon and survey Nos. 26 and 23 of Dahigaon, total 64 acres of dry agricultural lands. It was also stated that ail those lands were obtained in partition between Manaklal and Motilal under an oral partition in the year 1955 and that the partition was registered on 4-4-1959. Accordingly the land held by the family unit was joint Hindu family property of the coparcenery of Manaklal, Nandkishore and Shrikumar. A note was written in column No. 12 that Manaklal had two major unmarried daughters and there is responsibility of expenses of marriages upon the coparceners. Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that besides the fields mentioned in the return, Manaklal also held survey No. 12/2 measuring 3 acres 20 gunthas but record­ed in record of rights as I acre and 37 gunthas only and survey No. 29 measur­ing 13 acres 31 gunthas of Malegaon. Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that besides the fields mentioned in the return, Manaklal also held survey No. 12/2 measuring 3 acres 20 gunthas but record­ed in record of rights as I acre and 37 gunthas only and survey No. 29 measur­ing 13 acres 31 gunthas of Malegaon. Adding this land it was found that the total holding was 90 acres and 24 gunthas deducting 4 acres 24 gunthas as uncultivable land, it was found that the family unit held 86 acres of land and deducting 64 acres 31 gunthas of land to the holding of which the family unit of six members was entitled, it was found that 21 acres 8 gunthas were surplus land. Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that notice under section 17 of the Ceiling Act does not refer to survey No. 12/2 and survey No. 29 of Malegaon and, therefore, naturally the petitioner had no opportunity to file a written statement relating to these fields. Written statement of the petitioner placed on record justifies this comment. Notice under section 17 is mandatory and, therefore, if these two fields have to be considered afresh notice will have to be issued. 2. It was then pointed out that the two reports by Talathi placed on the record of the case at pages 42 and 43 disclosed that survey No 29 measuring 13 acres 31 gunthas was in possession of Motilal respondent No. 2 This fact has not been considered by the Ceiling Authorities while construing the total area of the land belonging to the holding of the family unit of the petitioner. Crop statements of these fields are on record. It was pointed out that the last date for tiling return was 2-12-1975 and the Ceiling inquiry was finished in great haste by passing final order on 9-2-1976 and, therefore the documents like crop statements and record of rights do not find place on the record. 3. The property held by the family unit being joint Hindu family property of the coparcenery, section 3(iii) of the Ceiling Act came into operation and the result was, that the shares of persons who were members of the family unit and who were entitled to share on partition had to be carved out by a notional partition under sub-section (1) of section 3(iii) of the Ceiling Act. Persons entitled to partition were Manaklal, his wife and two sons. However, while ascertaining the share to which these persons were entitled on partition, it was necessary to first ascertain as to what property was available for partition and for deciding as to what property was available for partition, provision had to be made for the marriage expenses of two unmarried major daughters, who were not members of the familyunit of Manaklal. Their names are Smt. Kiran and Smt. Baby and they have been shown at serial No. 8 and 10 of the return. Para 304 of Hindu Law by Mulla, Fourteenth Edition reads as under :- “The case, however, of unmarried daughter stands on a different footing. Her right to maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property is in lieu of a share on partition, provision should accordingly be made for her marriage expenses in the decree.” This observation is based on a Privy Council decision in the case of (M. A. Rajagopala Ayye'r v. M. A. Venkataraman1, Lord Thankerton speaking for the Privy Council stated that : “The right of an unmarried daughter to maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property is in lieu of a share on partition; provision should accordingly be made for her marriage expenses in the partition decree.” In another decision of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of (Shankaranarayanan and another v. The Official Receiver, Tirunelveli and another)2, it was pointed out, relying upon the Full Bench decision in the case of (Subayya v. Ananda Ramayya)3 : “that in a coparcenery consisting of father and sons, the obligation of maintaining and marrying the daughters was not only on the father and through him on the coparcenery but it was also an obligation on the co­parcenery itself. It was pointed out (In Subbayya's case) that the obliga­tion to marry was only a historical remnant of the daughter's original right to a share in the coparcenery property created by birth.” At the time of carving out a notional clause in terms of section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act, what the Ceiling Authority has to do is to nationally ascertain the shares of the coparceners as the Civil Court would have done at the time of passing of a partition decree. Naturally, therefore, the Ceiling Authority has to first ascertain what is the property available for partition and while ascertaining this basic fact, the provision for the marriage expenses of unmarried major daughters, who are not members of the family unit has to be made. It is true as was argued by Shri Naik, the learned A. G. P. appearing for the State, that the unmarried major daughters are not entitled to a share on partition. However, for the purpose of section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act, what is to be ascertained is not the entitlement of the daughters but entitlement of members of the family unit after ascertaining the property available for partition according to law. The question as to how much property should be set apart for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the marriage is a question of fact which can be decided by the Ceiling Authority only on the basis of a material placed on record before it. It appears that this aspect was not present to the mind of the Ceiling Authorities in the present case. 4. The result, therefore, is that the petition is allowed. The two impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the Ceiling Enquiry is remand-ad back to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Malkapur or equivalent Ceiling Authority firstly for ascertaining the property available for partition and carving out a notional shares in terms of section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act in accordance with the observations made above and secondly for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether survey No. 29 of Malegaon measuring 13 acres 31 gunthas was in possession of the members of the family unit of Manaklal at any time between 26-9-1970 to 2-10-1975. Now since the land holder is aware about the fields which are proposed to be considered for the purpose of holdings of family unit, fresh notice under section 17 of the Ceiling Act may not be necessary and Shri Mohta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner agrees to this position. However, before holding the fresh enquiry, Ceiling Authority shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make appropriate pleadings in the light of the observations contained in this judg­ment and to adduce such evidence as he may deem fit. Rule made absolute in these terms. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. ----