K.A. PAUL AND ORS.versusTALUK LAND BOARD, ALATHUR AND ORS.

A                       K.A. PAUL AND ORS.
                                 v.
               TALUK LAND BOARD, ALATHUR AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 15, 1992

B     [DR. T;K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

         Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963: Section 84( JA)-'His son or daughter'
    -Connotation of-Whether includes donor's stepson or step daughter.

       Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 declared certain
c voluntary transfers to be null and void. However, the section was amended
    by Act No. 19 of 1979, inserting sub-section (lA) to provide that any
    voluntary transfer effected by me~ns of a gift deed executed during the
    period commencing on the 1st day of January, 1970 and ending with the
    5th day of November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in excess
D   of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter
    of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to
    have been, invalid.

          In the appeal to this Court on the question : Whether a deed of gift
    executed after 1.1.1970 by a person in favour of two sons of her husband
E   by his first wife is attracted by the validating provision contained in .
    sub-section (lA) of Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

         Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment of the High
    Court, the Court
F
          HELD: 1. There is no reason why sub-section (lA) which was in-
    serted with a view to validating certain gifts, which would have been
    otherwise invalid, should be read so narrowly as to exclude a bona fide gift
    made by a stepmother in favour of the children born to her husband by
    his former wife. A stepson is as much a member of ~he family as a son is.
G   Any construction to the contrary would be inconsistent with the legislative
    intent manifested in sub-section (lA) of section 84. [558-C, DJ

           2. Appellants 1 and 2 being the stepsons of the third appellant were
    entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub- section (lA) of Section 84.
                                                                                    -
H                                                                        [558-E]
                                         55~
           K.A. PAUL v. TALUK LAND BOARD [THOMMEN, J.j                     557

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3209 of A
1984.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.81 of the Kerala High
Court in C.R.P. No. 1960 of 1980-a.

      G.Vishwanatha Iyer, S. Bala Krishnan, G. Srinivasan and S. Prasad          B
for the Appellants.

        M.T. George for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                 c
      DR. THOMMEN, J. The short question which arises for considera-
tion in this appeal is whether a deed of gift executed after 1.1.1970 by a
person in favour of two sons of her busband- by his first wife is attracted
by the validating provision contained in sub-section (lA) of Section 84 of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964). The facts are not in          D
dispute. The only point for decision is whe'ther the expression 'son or
daughter' includes a stepson or a stepdaughter.                   ·

      Appellants 1 and 2 are the donees and appellant 3, who is their
stepmother, is the donor. The deed was executed between 1.1.1970 and             E
5.11.1974, which is the crucial period to attract the validating provision
contained in sub-section (lA).
                                                      6
     Section 84 declares certain voluntary transfers to be null and void.
However, the Section was amended by Act 19of1979 inserting sub-section
(lA) which, insofar as it is material, reads:-                                   F
          "S. 84(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
          section ( 1), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court
          or other authority, any voluntary transfer effected by means
          of a gift deed executed during the period commencing on
          the 1st day of January, 1970 and ending with the 5th day of            G
          November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in
          excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter
          or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter
          shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid-
                                                                                 H
     558                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         Does the expression 'son or daughter' include a stepson or a step-
     daughter? The learned Judge held:-

              "......What is validated by Sec. 84(1A) of the Act is only a
              gift 'by a person owning or holding land in excess of ceiling
              area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter
B             of his pre~deceased son or daughter. The stress is on the
              word 'his' which qualifies the expressions son or daughter.
              Unless the donee is the son or daughter of the donor, the
              gift will not attract the operation of Sec. 84(1A) of the
              Act ........ ".

C         We see no reason why sub-section (1A) which was inserted with a
    view to validating certain gifts, which would have been otherwise invalid,
    should be read so narrowly as to exclude a bona fide gift made by a
    st~pmother in favour of the children born to her husband by his former
    wife. A stepson is as much a member of the family as a son is. Any
D · construction to the contrary would be inconsistent with the legislative intent
    manifested in sub-section (1A) of Section 84.

           Accordingly we hold that, on the present facts, appellants 1 and 2
     being the stepsons of the third appellant were entitled to the benefit of the
     provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 84. The judgment of the High
E    Court .to the contrary is accordingly s.et aside and the Land Board is
     dkected to pass appropriate orders in the light of what is stated above in
     regard to the ·afore-mentioned claim of the appellants. The appeal is
     allowed in the above tf.'(_IDS. However, we make no order as to costs.

     J.B.                                                         Appe.al allowed.