Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 453 (MAD)

K. N. Devarajulu Naidu v. The Authorised Officer

1986-11-14

M.N.CHANDURKAR

body1986
ORDER M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The proceedings for determination of surplus land under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act (Act 17 of 1970) hereinafter referred to as the Act, were taken by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kancheepuram, in respect of land which the present petitioner claimed did not belong to him but belonged to his daughter, Dhanalakshmi having been bequeathed to her by her grand-father, that is, the petitioner's father, by a will dated 5.6.1984. This land is separately registered in the name of Dhanalakshmi. There is some doubt as to whether Dhanalakshmi's grand-father died on 15.2.1969 or 15.4.1969. Whatever be the date, the grandfather had died before 15.7.1970, which is the relevant date for the purpose of determination of surplus land. 2. It appears that in order to create evidence that Dhanalakshmi owned the land in her independent right, a suit came to be filed in the name of minor Dhanalakshmi in the Court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, being O.S. No. 282 of 1971, in which an ex parte decree against the father was passed. This decree was a decree of declaration that Dhanalakshmi had secured the property as a result of a will from her grand-father and there was a permanent injunction restraining the father from interfering with the rights of Dhanalakshmi. 3. The Authorised Officer took the view that the will was not produced in Court, and therefore, the contents of the will could not be verified. Dhanalakshmi was admittedly a minor on 15.2.1970, and the Authorised Officer found that the land owner had not let in any evidence as to why Dhanalakshmi should be excluded from the family unit. Having regard to the provisions of Section 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act (Act 58 of 1961), the Authorised Officer included the land standing in the name of Dhanalakshmi in the total holding of her father and consequently the extent of 7.68 standard acres of land was declared as surplus. 4. The present revision petitioner had appealed against this order. The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, merely stated that the minor daughter was included in the family. He took the view that if Dhanalakshmi had become the owner of the land as a result of a Will of her grandfather, there was no necessity for filing a suit for declaration. 4. The present revision petitioner had appealed against this order. The Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, merely stated that the minor daughter was included in the family. He took the view that if Dhanalakshmi had become the owner of the land as a result of a Will of her grandfather, there was no necessity for filing a suit for declaration. He construed the decree in the civil suit as an internal family arrangement consequenton the introduction of the Act. Thisorder is challenged by the landholder in this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition, the simple contention raised on behalf of the landholder is that having regard to Explanation-II of the definition of 'family' an unmarried minor daughter who has been given land voluntarily either by her parents or her grand parents on account of natural love and affection will not be included in the definition of 'family'. The argument is that the Revenue Records produced by the State showed that the property in question had been separately recorded there in the name of Dhanalakshmi and this clearly showed that the property could not be included in the total holding of the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Pleader supported the orders of the revenue authorities contending that the will itself has not been produced and it must, therefore, be held that it is not proved that the property standing in the name of Dhanalakshmi came to her by a will. A discrepancy was pointed out that while in the civil suit the cause of action is shown as 15.4.1969 which meant that the grand-father of Dhanalakshmi died on 15.4.1969 now in the present proceedings the date of the death of grand-father of Dhanalakshmi is stated to be 15.2.1969. Thus, according to the learned Government Pleader, the will not having been produced, no interference was called for with the orders of the Revenue authorities. 7. Now a perusal of the records will show that even according to the Revenue authorities the land to the extent of 19.08-1/4 ordinary acres equal to 9.75 standard acres stood in the name of Dhanalakshmi. The question is whether this land could be included in the total holding of the family consisting of the landholder, Dhanalakshmi and her mother. It is not the case of the Revenue department that the landholder had given this land to the daughter. The question is whether this land could be included in the total holding of the family consisting of the landholder, Dhanalakshmi and her mother. It is not the case of the Revenue department that the landholder had given this land to the daughter. The revenue records themselves show that the land was recorded in the name of Dhanalakshmi. If Dhanalakshmi's grand-father had died intestate, the proper person, whose name would have been entered in the revenue records would be Dhanalakshmi's father.-That is not the position here. If after the death of the grand-father of Dhana-lakshmi, the name of Dhanalakshmi's father was not recorded, but Dhanalakshmi's name came to be recorded, it is obvious that even according to the revenue records there is an Independent title in favour of Dhanalakshmi flowing from her grand-father. This is, therefore, a case which would be squarely covered by Explanation II to the definition of 'family'. Merely because an entry in the revenue records came to be made after 15.2.1970, that did not mean, that the title of Dhanalakshmi which she derived from her grand-father was In any way affected. The fact that Dhanalakshmi had become owner as soon as the grand-father died is not affected by a delay in making a change in the revenue records. Whether the grand-father died on 15.2.1969 or 15.4.1969 is not relevant because both these dates are prior to 15.2.1970. The Revenue authorities were, therefore, clearly in error in Including the extent of land standing in the name of Dhanalakshmi in the holding of her father. In the circumstances, the non-production of the will is not very relevant because the revenue records themselves show that the land was independently acquired by Dhanalakshmi not from her father, but from her grand-father. In this view of the matter, the orders of both the authorities in so far as they included 9.75 standard acres in the holding of the present petitioner are set aside. Since this area of 9.75 standard acres was included in the petitioner's holding surplus land of 8.68 standards came to be determined. If the land standing in the name of Dhanalakshmi is not included in the total holding, it is obvious that there would be no surplus land. Accordingly I find that the present petitioner is not liable to surrender any land as surplus. 8. The civil revision petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500.