JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---The question, which arises for consideration in this letters patent appeal, is whether while calculating ceiling area under section 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended by Act No. 21 of 1975, (the Ceiling Act, for short) the provisions for maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried major daughters have to be taken into account. 2. The appellant Rambhau-Rajaram Mahure filed a return under section 12(l)(a) of the Ceiling Act of the land held by his family before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, stating that his family comprised of his two minor sons, wife and himself, The return disclosed the details of land as 106 acres and 24 gunthas held by the appellant along with his minor sons. The appellants wife-Indubai separately held 91 acres and 6 gunthas of land which she had received under a gift-deed ughters is necessary to be taken into account. Shri R.R. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the appellant, referred to paragraph 304(2) of Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, 15th Edition where it has been observed that the case of an unmarried daughter stands on a different footing, and 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. The submission was that since the right of maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property is in lieu of a share in partition, that share had to be taken into consideration for the purposes of section 3(3)(a)(i) of the Ceiling Act. Section 3(3), so far as material, is as follows :--- "3(3). The submission was that since the right of maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property is in lieu of a share in partition, that share had to be taken into consideration for the purposes of section 3(3)(a)(i) of the Ceiling Act. Section 3(3), so far as material, is as follows :--- "3(3). Where any land--- (a) is held by a family of which a person is a member, and the holding of such person or of a family unit of which such person is a member including the extent of share of such person, if any, in the land answering to any of the descriptions in Clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) above, exceeds the ceiling area on or before the commencement date or any date thereafter (hereinafter referred to as the relevant date), then for purpose of determining the ceiling area and the surplus land in respect of that holding, the share of such person in the land aforesaid shall be calculated in the following manner :--- (i) in the land held by a family of which the person is a member, the share of each member of the family shall be determined so that each member, who is entitled to a share on Partition, shall be taken to be holding separately land to the extent of his share, as if the land had been so divided and separately held on the relevant date." A plain reading of these provisions would show that only the share of such a member shall be determined who is entitled to a share on partition. In the note below paragraph-317 of Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, it has been observed as follows: "No female except those mentioned in paragraph-315 to 317 is entitled to a share on partition. Thus, daughter, sisters, etc., are not entitled to a share on partition. But, on a partition provision must be made for their maintenance and marriage expenses : (See paragraph-304)," The observations in paragraph 304(2) referred to above have to be under-stood in the context that the daughters, sisters. etc., are not entitled to a share, on partition, and what they are, entitled to is only provision for maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property. etc., are not entitled to a share, on partition, and what they are, entitled to is only provision for maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family property. Shri Deshpande, however, urged that in (M.A. Rajagopala Ayyar v. M.A. Venkataraman)3, A.I.R. (34)1947 Privy Council 122 the observations of Shri Dinshah Mulla in paragraph 304 were quoted with approval, and so the proposition that the provision for maintenance and marriage expenses out of the joint family is in lieu of a share on partition cannot now, be disputed. The Privy Council was, however, considering the claim of a widow of a coparcener, who spent her own money for the marriage expenses of her daughter, to be reimbursed on a partition, and found that she was entitled to the reimbursement. There was no question there of the Privy Council holding that a daughter was entitled to a share on partition. In (Rangubai wlo Lalji Patil v. Laxman Lalji Patil)4, A.I.R. 1966 Bombay 169 this Court only held that by the decree In a suit for partition, the Court should make provisions for the maintenance and, marriage expenses of the daughters. In (Shankaranarayan v. The Official Receive Tirunelveli)5, A.I.R. 1977 Madras 171, it was held that in the case of a daughter, after filing of partition suit, the amount expended for her marriage is to be provided by joint family. Both these cases speak of the provision to be made for the marriage expenses of a daughter in the event of a partition and do not say, as tried to be contended by Shri Deshpande, that a daughter is entitled to a share on partition. In itself, the proposition is so well settled that no further discussion on this point is called for. 5. The next submission was that though there may not be actually a partition but the share of the member who is entitled to a share, on partition, has to be determined, all these considerations will, have to be taken into, account. However, what has to be done Under the statute would have to be limited by the specific provision of the statute. However, what has to be done Under the statute would have to be limited by the specific provision of the statute. The object of the Ceiling Act, inter alia, is to impose a maximum limit on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra and to provide for the acquisition and, distribution of land held in excess of such ceiling, and it is for this purpose, that the share of a person, who is entitled to a share on partition, has to, be determined in the agricultural land alone, without taking into consideration the other movable of immovable property of the family or the encumbrances and claims on the property belonging to the family. Section 18 of the Ceiling Act enumerates the matters to be considered by the Collector at, the hearing and it does not refer to matters such as the right to maintenance and the provisions for expenses on the marriages of the unmarried daughters. In fact such an elaborate enquiry would not be relevant for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. We are clear that for the purpose of section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act, it is not necessary to ascertain the entitlement of the daughters who do not have a share in the property. There is nothing in the Ceiling Act which is calculated to defeat the claims of such daughters. Their claim for maintenance and marriage expenses would be available against whatever property might be left with the family after the declaration of the surplus, Even the judgment in Manaklal's case does not say that the daughters are entitled to a share in the partition or that for purposes of sub-section (3) of section 3, their shares have to be carved out. 6. We may point out that a similar contention had been raised by the landholder in (Nagendra Verma v. State of Maharashtra)6, Writ Petition No. 661 of 1977, decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on September, 13, 1982 and had been negatived. 6. We may point out that a similar contention had been raised by the landholder in (Nagendra Verma v. State of Maharashtra)6, Writ Petition No. 661 of 1977, decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on September, 13, 1982 and had been negatived. That decision was relied upon by another learned Single Judge in Bhagwandas Heda v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 Mh.L.J. 825 and it was observed as follows :--- "While calculating the extent of surplus land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act as amended by Act 21 of 1975, it is not necessary to ascertain the question as regards setting apart of any area to meet the marriage and maintenance expenses of an unmarried major daughter. The combined effect of sections 3 and 4 of the Ceiling Act is to calculate the share of each member separately for the purpose of the Act and to club together the lands of those who fall within the concept of family unit for determining the total holding and consequently the surplus if any. What is thus contemplated by section 3(3)(1) of the Ceiling Act is not actual general partition by metes and bounds but an imaginary or notional partition merely to calculate the total land of the family unit or the person." We respectfully agree with the decisions In Nagendra Verma v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 661 1987 and Bhagwandas Heda v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 Mh.L.J. 825 and disagree with the view in Manaklal's case. The correct legal position under section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act is that while calculating the extent of share which the members of a family unit are entitled to hold, the claims of the unmarried daughters to maintenance and marriage expenses are not required to be taken into account; but what is to be determined is the share of such a member of the family who is entitled to a share on partition. The case of a daughter who is not entitled to a share on partition would not, therefore, come within that provision. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ------