1997 (2) TMI 544 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of ceiling area for land holdings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
2. Interpretation of "family" and the application of Explanation I to Section 82 of the Act.
3. Treatment of multiple wives and their children in calculating the ceiling area.

Summary:

1. Determination of Ceiling Area:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 1894 of 1988, which directed the declarant to surrender surplus land beyond the ceiling area as determined by the Taluk Land Board. Initially, the Board ordered the surrender of 190.54 acres, which was later revised to 97.16 acres after a remit by the High Court.

2. Interpretation of "Family" and Explanation I to Section 82:
The declarant, having three wives and ten children, argued that each wife and her children should be considered a separate family under Explanation I to Section 82 of the Act. The High Court rejected this plea, holding that the properties of the husband, the wife named by him, and their unmarried minor children would be considered one family for determining the ceiling area. The properties of the other wives and their children would be treated separately, and the husband's properties would not be included in their ceiling area calculations.

3. Treatment of Multiple Wives and Their Children:
The High Court's interpretation was that the husband could only be a member of one family, chosen by him, and only the lands owned by this statutory family would be considered for the ceiling area. This interpretation was consistent with previous judgments, including Kesava Menon vs. State of Kerala and Mavilammal vs. Taluk Land Board, which held that the husband's lands could only be accounted for in the family he chose, not in the families of his other wives.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, agreeing that the lands owned by the husband and the family chosen by him would be considered for the ceiling area. The lands owned by the other wives and their children would not be included. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in legal interpretations, especially those that have been long established, and dismissed the appeal without costs.