9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1829 - SC - Indian LawsTransfer and Acquisition of Land - Acquisition and distribution of land held in excess of ceiling - restrictions of transfers - principal plea, which found favour with the appellate authority, was that the Partition Deed dated 31.1.1970 was against the principles of Hindu law to the extent it gave a share to minor daughters in ancestral land - alienation of properties to minor daughters, and that a female child - HELD THAT - In view of difference of opinions and the distinguishing judgments (Hon'ble Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. allowed the appeal and Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, J. dismissed the appeal), the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to a Larger Bench.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. 2. Validity and effect of the Partition Deed dated 31.01.1970. 3. Determination of surplus land under the Act. 4. Rights of unmarried daughters in ancestral property. 5. Legality of cross-objections in appellate proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: The Act aims to impose a ceiling on agricultural land holdings in Maharashtra to ensure equitable distribution among the landless. Sections 8, 10, and 11 of Chapter III restrict transfers and acquisitions of land to prevent circumvention of the Act's objectives. Transfers after 26.09.1970 are deemed to be in anticipation of the Act and are scrutinized to prevent evasion. 2. Validity and Effect of the Partition Deed dated 31.01.1970: The Partition Deed, executed and registered before the cut-off date of 26.09.1970, divided the HUF's agricultural land among Vithaldas, his minor son, and three minor daughters. The Tribunal and appellate authorities questioned the validity of this partition, deeming it unnatural as it allotted shares to minor daughters who had no legal right to a share in ancestral property under Hindu law at that time. The authorities held that the partition was a sham transaction intended to evade the Act's provisions. 3. Determination of Surplus Land under the Act: The Surplus Lands Distribution Tribunal (SLDT) initially declared 60 acres and 27 gunthas of Vithaldas' land as surplus. Upon remand, the SDO excluded certain lands, including those allotted to the major daughters, resulting in 59 acres and 35 gunthas being deemed surplus. The appellate authority, however, included the lands allotted to the daughters, increasing the surplus to 111 acres and 39 gunthas. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal. 4. Rights of Unmarried Daughters in Ancestral Property: The courts examined whether the partition deed, which allotted shares to minor daughters, was valid. Historically, under Hindu law, daughters were not entitled to a share in ancestral property. However, the father could make reasonable gifts to daughters for their maintenance and marriage. The courts found that the partition deed, which gave substantial shares to minor daughters, was not in line with these principles and was intended to circumvent the Act. 5. Legality of Cross-Objections in Appellate Proceedings: The State filed cross-objections against the exclusion of lands allotted to the major daughters. The appellate authority allowed these cross-objections without impleading the daughters, which was contested. The courts held that the daughters were necessary parties, and their non-impleadment was a procedural defect. However, the substantive issue of the partition's validity was decided based on the available evidence. Separate Judgments: - Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: Allowed the appeal, holding that the partition deed was valid and the lands allotted to the daughters should be excluded from the family unit's holding. - Justice K.M. Joseph: Dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts that the partition was a sham transaction and the lands should be included in the family unit's holding. Conclusion: The matter was referred to a larger bench due to the differing opinions of the judges.
|
