- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 23 January 1984
- Bench
- E. S. Venkataramiah, M. P. Thakkar
- Result
- Petition dismissed.
Headnote
. . .
.
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultilral Holdings Act, j960 (.Act No~ 20 of ~ 1960); SeCtion 6 and read with SeCtionJ2(gg). c.ons_/rfl.lu!tiOn of:-Whether, in. vitw of
ihe wordi,;g· in section 6 (ii) viz "eaeh 1ne111ber of the·/ptnily, including a n_1inor son would b~coine a holder entitled to a separate unit ofihe _ceiling· area'', the. 11tintJr son will be.entitled to-clllifn a separate ceilifiC.are.a independently.
DismisS_ing the Special Leav~ Petition, -the Court, HELD : ·Section .. 6(ii) of the M: P .. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdin:;s ACt, .n 1960 does not have any eff'eCt. on the _ceiling area to which a fainily as defined. in; Section 2{gg)· iS entitled under Section 7. A m.inor.Son who is diemed tci -be entitled to an itea .of Joint Family liind proporiionate to his Share under. s. 6 (ii) Ts not entitied to a .separate ·ceiling area independently. His share of tanct· can -be clubbed with the land which can be _claimed by h_is father as his· ceiling area. [45-2D;B]
Begulld Bapi i:-aju etc. ·e1c_"v. State of of A. P. (1983) ·2 Scale l41 followed. Sarj~ibai_& -Ors. V. State of M. P. ~Ors. (Misc. P~titlon No. 811 of 197' of M. P .. High Court} app~oved.. • . • . ·.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
VENkATARAMIAH, J. The con.iention of the· petitioner in the above case ·is that on a tttie· construction .of.section -·6 read with section 2(gg) ·:of. the 11adhya Prad.esh Ceiling on Agric\i!tural Ho!din2s Ad, 1960 (Act No. 2o of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') each member of the family, including a minor son would become a holder entitled to a separate unit of the ceiling area. In other words, it is argued that a minor son who is deemed to be entitled to an area of joint family land proportionate to his share under sectfon 6(ii) of the .Act ·is entitled to claim a separate ceiling area independently. It is contended. that his share of land cannot be clubbed with the lan<l which can be claimed by his.father as his ceiling. area ..
We have heari:! Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the peti-tioner. He .'has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Act viz. section 2 (gg), section 6 and section 7 of the Act. The High Couri has 10egat'ved the above .wntention of the petitioner relying upon its ear.lier decision in Sarjubai & Ors.· v. State ofMddhya Pradesl1. & .Ors. (Misc. Petition No. ·Sil of 1979). We have gone through that decision. On going through the said decision, we find that it is correctly decided. We agree with the reasons given .in support of th~ said .decision. ft is ·in conformity with v: the view expressed by· this Court in Begulla Bapi Raju etc. etc. State of Andhra Pradesh.">
Section 6(ii) of the Act does ·not have any effect on the ceiling area to which· a family as defined in section 2(gg) is entitled under section· 7.
The petition is atcotdingly dismissed.
'
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPHLLATB .JURISDICTION·~ Peiition for Special Leave to ..., Appeal (Civil) No' 14604 of 1983 ..
From the Judgment and 'Order dated the 2nd September. 1983 . -I of the Madhya Pradesh High Coi1rt (Indore Berich) .·in Civil Miscel-
laneous Petition ·No. 193 of 197&.
Appearances
G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Gambhir and - A.shok Mahajan for the Petitioner .. .
. Ravbidrq )Jana and A.K: Sanghi for. t.he Respondent.
The Order of the ·Court was delivered by.
•
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.