S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against a judgment dated 30th September, 1997 passed by the Chairman, Land reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV additional District Judge, East Godavari district at Kakinada in L. R. A. No. 4 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the order dated 12-1-1983 in L. C. C. No. 1278/pdp/75 passed by the land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada was dismissed. ( 2 ) ONE Venkataramanamma, a lady, was the landholder. She allegedly made a settlement in favour of her adopted son whereunder she reserved a life interest in respect of an extent of Ac. 18-54 cents of land and gave the vested remainder to her son. She died on 16-6-1981. The computation of the ceiling area at her hand had not been determined by then. The petitioner herein filed an application before the ceiling authorities to the effect that having regard to the said fact, the land in question be not taken into consideration for the purposes of computation of ceiling area as his adoptive mother has no longer been having any land keeping in view the stipulation made by her in the instrument executed by her. The learned Land Reforms tribunal as also the Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the provisions of Section 8 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as also the definition of the term holding vis-a-vis that of the owner , held that the limited owner is not excluded and that the land held by the limited owner is also to be considered for the purposes of calculation of the ceiling area. ( 3 ) MR. ( 3 ) MR. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submits that having regard to the fact that at the time of determination of the ceiling area the lands in question were not available at the hands of the aforementioned venkataramanamma, the question of taking the same into consideration for the purpose of calculation of ceiling limit does not arise and in support of the said contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Sakhamuri Venkata Rattamma vs. State of A. P. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that it is now well settled principle of law that limited ownership is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the ceiling area. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Yedida chakradhara Rao vs. State of A. P. ( 5 ) "holding" of a person is defined under Section 3 (i) of the Act which reads thus: "holding" means the entire land held by a person (i) as an owner, (ii) as a limited owner; (iii) as a usufructuary mortgagee; (iv) as a tenant; (v) who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of contract for sale of land or otherwise; or in one or more of such capacities; and the expression "to hold land" shall be construed accordingly; explanation: Where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in any other capacity, such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons; "owner" has been defined in Section 3 (n) which reads as follows: "owner" includes a person by whom or in whose favour a trust is created and a person entitled to a vested remainder, but does not include a limited owner; and. . . . . . . " section 8 of the Act provides:"8 Declaration of holding: Every person, whose holding on the notified date-together with any land transferred by him on or after the 24th january, 1971 whether by way of sale, gift, usufractuary mortgage, exchange settlement, surrender or in any other manner whatsoever and any land in respect of which a trust has been created by him on or after 24th january, 1971, exceeds the specified limit, shall, within thirty days from the notified date or within such extended period as the Government may notify in this behalf, furnish a declaration in respect of his holding together with such land, to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the whole or a major part of Ms holding is situate containing such particulars including those relating to lands held by him in any part of India outside the State and in such form as may be prescribed. " ( 6 ) THE Apex Court in Yedida Chakradhara rao s case (supra) having regard to the aforementioned provisions inter alia held:"the main submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the expression holding has been defined in sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the said Act, the definition section set out earlier, as meaning the entire land held by a person (emphasis supplied) and that the use of the said word "held" in the definition indicates that the person who is supposed to hold the land, must necessarily be the person in possession of the said land; and hence where, in part performance for an agreement of sale or under a lease, the purchaser or lessee has been put in possession of any land, the owner of the said land cannot any longer be regarded as holding the said land and it cannot be said that the said land is held by him. It was submitted by learned Counsel that in view of this context although the Explanation to sub-section (i) of Section 3 is very widely worded, its meaning cannot be so extended as to cover a case where the owner of the land is no longer in possession of the land and has parted with the possession thereof under an agreement creating a right, legal or equitable, in the land concerned. We find it difficult to accept this contention. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (i) of Section 3 set out the various capacities in which a person can be said to "hold" land for the purposes of the said Act and among these capacities are "as a usufructuary mortgagee, as a tenant and as one who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a contract of sale". The very language of sub- section (i) of Section 3 indicates that land can be held as contemplated in the said sub-section by persons in a number of capacities. The Explanation in plain language states that the same land can be held by one person in one capacity and by another person in a different capacity and provides that such land shall be included in the holdings of both such persons. The explanation thus clearly contemplates that the same land can be held as contemplated under sub-section (i) by one person as the owner and by another person as his lessee or as a person to whom the owner has delivered possession of the land in part performance of an agreement to sell. On a plain reading of the language used in the Explanation, we find it that it is not possible to accept the submission that only where the land is in possession of a person can that land be regarded as held by him. " ( 7 ) THE said decision is not applicable in the instant case as at the time of determination of such ceiling area no land was being held by Venkataramanamma since deceased inasmuch as having regard to the stipulation made by her in the instrument of settlement, ownership as also the possession would devolve upon her adopted son. In S. Venkataramanamma s case (supra), a learned Judge of this Court observed:"though the situation as it obtains in this case is not explicitly contemplated by the Legislature, but on an interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 12 it is irresistible to infer that on the demise of the estate holder the property necessarily devolves on the vested remainder holder and the same has to be included in his holding. If that is so, the same would have to be excluded from the computation of the holding of the life estate holder. If that is so, the same would have to be excluded from the computation of the holding of the life estate holder. The words "any land is deemed to have been surrendered under this Act by any limited owner the possession of such land shall revert to the owner" occurring in sub-section (4) of Sec. 12 on construction will mean that the property on the demise of the estate holder would have vested in the vested remainder holder and therefore the possession would be with the vested remainder holder. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the extent of Acs. 10-95 cents, over which the deceased declarant had only a life estate, would stand vested in the vested remainder holder and therefore the same shall stand excluded from the computation of the petitioner s holding. " ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the fact that after her death deceased Venkataramanamma did not hold any land although she had a limited interest during her life time in relation thereto, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgments of both the learned Tribunals below cannot be sustained as the Tribunals committed a serious error in passing the judgments impugned herein. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order passed by the Land reforms Appellate Tribunal affirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal is set aside and quashed. The respondent- authorised officer is hereby directed not to include the lands held by the deceased venkataramanamma, as detailed below, in her holding, for the purpose of determination of the ceiling area of the deceased-declarant. SI. No. Village Survey No. Extent. 1. Pro Rayavaram 8 10. 22 2. -do- 7/1 2. 23 3. -do- 10 1. 10 4. Jagannadhapuram 2 3. 37 5. -do- 4 1. 14 6. -do- 3 0. 48 Total : 18. 54 ( 10 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.