Holding

The ceiling area under Section 82 is calculated only on the lands owned by the husband and the family he selects (one wife and her minor children); lands of other wives and their children are excluded and cannot be treated as separate families for deduction purposes.

Summary

The deceased declarant, who had three wives and ten children, had elected his first wife and her minor children as his statutory family under Explanation I to Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Taluk Land Board ordered him to surrender 160.54 acres of surplus land; after revisions the Board fixed a surplus of 97.16 acres, of which 43.20 acres had already been surrendered. The legal representatives of the declarant argued that each wife and her children should be treated as a separate family, allowing the ceiling area for each family to be deducted from the total holdings, thereby reducing the surplus. The Kerala High Court rejected this contention, holding that only the lands of the husband and the family he selects (one wife and her minor children) count for the ceiling calculation, and the lands of other wives and their children are excluded. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the High Court's interpretation aligns with the statutory scheme and that a long‑standing decision cannot be overruled unless it is manifestly wrong or unfair. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Explanation I to Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 treats each wife and her children as a separate family for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area.
Whether lands owned by the other wives and their children can be taken into account in fixing the ceiling area of the statutory family chosen by the husband.
Whether a long‑standing High Court decision on this interpretation can be overruled absent a manifest error or unfairness.

Legislation cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963s. 2(14), s. 2(4), s. 82

Subjects

Kerala Land Reforms Actceiling areastatutory familypolygamyland surplusrevisionstatutory interpretationprecedent

Judgment

KAITITE VALAPPIL PATHUMMA AND ORS. A
v.

- THE TALUK LAND BOARD AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 1997
B

-- [K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963-Sections 2(4), 82 Explanation
1-Declaralit having three wives and ten children-Detennination of ceiling
area-Lands owned by statutory family only to be considered-Held, lands
owned by other wives and children not to be included in the family. C
Practice and Procedure-Decisions of Courts rendered long
ag~Should not be interfered with unless it is manifestly wrong or unfair.

The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased M, a D
dedarant under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The declarant had
opted his first wife and her minor children as his "statutory family" under
Section 82 of the Act of 1963. Since the Board directed surrender of 160.54
acres of land held by the declarant, he filed a Revision in High Court
wherein the High Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal. There·
after the B~ard passed a fresh order determining 97.16 acres as surplus. E
Since the declarant had surrendered 43.20 acres, he was directed .to
surrender the remaining area. The aforesaid order of the Board was
challenged in Revision by the declarant and after his death his legal
representatives viz. the Appellants herein. The Appellants contended
before the High Court that since the declarant had three wives and ten F
children, each wife and her children shall be deemed to be a separate
family under Explanation I to Section 82 and therefore, the ceiling in
respect of each family has to be deducted from the total holding.

The High Court rejected the contention and held that the properties
of the husband will not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the G
ceiling area of the family constituted by other other wives and her children
and that this position has been made clear by the Explanation, the inten·
tion of which was to confine the family to the husband and one of the wives
and their unmarried minor children for the purpose of the ceiling
provision of the Act. H
175
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A On appeal before this Court, it was contended that the declarant
having three wives and ten children by the said three wives each wife and
the children by her shall be deemed to be a separate family under Explana·
tion I to Section 82 of the Act of 1963, and therefore the ceiling area in
respect of each separate family has to be deducted from the total holdings
B of the declarant so that the other two wives and their minor children shall
not be deprived of their iegitimate right to get a larger area.

The Respondents contended that under Section 82, when a declarant
husband has more thar,i one wife, the husband can be a member of only
-
one such family and not of all families simultaneously and only the lands
C owned by the husband and the family so chosen by him will be taken into
account for calculating the ceiling area, that the lands owned or possessed
by the other wives and members of their families will not be taken into
account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of the family
constituted by the husband, one of his wives and unmarried minor children
D of that wife constitutes the statutory family for the purpose of computing
the ceiling area, that Section 82 was understood and interpreted in that
light by the High Court of Kerala ever since the Act came into force, that
the High . Court has only given effect to the said legal position and a
different view is not warranted specially at this stage when the law laid
down by the High Court and followed by it in the impugned judgment has
E held the field for more than two decades.

Dismissing the Appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court that only the lands owned
F by the husband and the family chosen by him will be taken into account
for calculating the ceiling area of a family, is justified. The land owned and
possessed by the other wives and members of their families will not be
taken into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of
-
the statutory family constituted by the husband as aforesaid. (184-E]

G 2. It is not permissible to treat the other wives and their children as
separate families and then to_ deduct that ceiling area for each of such
family from the total holding of the declarant husband. [184-F]

Kesava Menon v. State of Kera/a & A11r., (1976) K.L.T. 408 and
H Mayilammal v. Taluk Land Board, (1984) KLT 962, approved.
KATTITEVAlAPPILPAlHUMMAv. TALUKLAND BD. [PARIPOORNAN, J.]177

3. A decision rendered long ago can be over-ruled only if this Court A
comes to ·the conclusion that it is manifestly wrong or unfair and ~ot
merely on the ground that another interpretation is possible and the Court
may arrive at a different conclusion. Even if a different view is possible, if
it will have the effect of upsetting or reopening past and closed transac-
tions or unsettling titles all over the State, Court should be loathe to take B

- a different view. [184-G-H, 185-A)

1996.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12058 of

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.94 of the' Kerala High C
Court in C.R.P. No. 1894 of 1988.

E.M.S. Anam for the Appellants.

T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer and M.T. George for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PARIPOORNAN, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, rendered in C.R.P.
No. 1894 of 1988 dated 18.7.1994. The appellants are the legal repre-
sentatives of T. Mammad, the 'declarant' under the Kerala Land Reforms E
Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The declarant had three
wives and ten children by the said three wives. He filed a declaration
regarding the land held and possessed by him before the Taluk Land
Board, Taliparamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). In his state-
ment, he had opted his wife Pathu (first wife) and her minor children as F
,his "statutory family" by exercising the option'specified in explanation I to
section 82 of .the Act. The Board, by order dated 28.8.1986 directed the
declarant to' surrender 160.54 acres of land held by him in excess of the
ceiling area. In revision, C.R.P. No. 2131 of 1986 the High Court set aside
the order of the Board and ordered a remit. Thereafter the Board by order
dated 28.6.1988 passed a fresh order determining 97.16 acres as surplus G
land of the declarant. The Board also noticed that the declarant had
already surrendered 43.20 acres as surplus land and, therefore, the
declarant was directed to surrender the remaining area. The order so
passed by the Board was assailed in revision before the High Court of
Kerala in CRP No. 1894 of 1988. The declarant and after his demise his H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A legal representatives contended that the declarant having three wives and
ten children in the three wives, each wife and her children shall be deemed
to be a separate family under explanation I to section 82 of the Act and,
therefore, the ceiling area in respect of each family has to be deducted
from the total holding of the declarant. This plea was repelled by the High
B Court. The High Court held thus : '

"The properties of the husband, the wife named by him and their
unmarried minor children will be taken into account for the pur-
pose of determining the ceiling area as if they constitute one family.
Regarding the other f amity constituted by the other wife and her
-
c unmarried minor children, the ceiling provisions are to be enforced
as if they constituted a separate family and their properties alone will
be taken into account for that purpose. In other words, the proper-
ties of the husband will not be taken into account for the purpose
of fixing the ceiling area of the family constituted by that wife and
her children. This position has been made clear by the explanation,
D the intention of which was to confine the family to the husband
and one of the wives and their unmarried minor children for the
purpose of the ceiling provisions of the Act."

(emphasis supplied)
E
The High Court observed further :

"When the husband and one of the wives and their children
constitute one family the ceiling area has to be detenni11ed 011 the
basis of the properties possessed or owned by them and not by the
F other wife or wives as the case may be. The properties possessed
or owned by the other wife or wives are not taken into account for
the purpose of determining the ceiling area of the family co11Stituted
by the husband, the wife named by him and their children."

(emphasis supplied)
G
It was noticed by the High Court that the order passed by th~urt
in CRP No. 1891 of 1988 to exclude an extent of 15 acres was not given
effect to by the Board. So, an extent of 15 acres directed to be deleted by
the order in CRP No. 1891 of 1988 was directed to be excluded from the
H properties mentioned in part D of the order showing the lands to be
··~

KATITIEVALAPPILPATHUMMA v. TALUKLAND BD. [PARIPOORNAN,J.]179

surrendered. The revision filed by the declarant was allowed in part. Since A
the declarant is no more the legal representatives have come up in appeal
against the said order passed in revision by the High Court dated 18.7.1994
modifying the order of the Board.

2. We heard counsel. The submission made before the High Court
was repeated before us. Counsel contended that the declarant having three B
wives and ten children by the said three wives each wife and the children
by her shall be deemed to be a separate family under the explanation I to
section 82 of the Act, and, therefore, the ceiling area in respect of each
family has to be deducted from the total holdings of the declarant. It was
argued that the other wives and their minor children shall be deemed to C
be separate families and so the ceiling area in respect of each such family
has to be deducted from the total holdings of the declarant so that the
other two wives and their minor children shall not be deprived of their
legitimate right to get a larger area. On the other hand, counsel for the
respondent-State submitted that on a fair and proper reading of section 82 D
along with the explanations,· it will be evident that when a declarant
husband has plurality of wives and children, by exercise of the option under
explanation I, the husband can be a member of only one such family and
not all the families simultaneously and only the lands owned by the husband
and the family so chosen by him will be taken into account for calculating E
the ceiling area of a family. It was argued, that the lands owned or
possessed by the other wives and members of their families will not be taken
into account for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area in respect of the
family constituted by the husband, one of his wives and unmarried minor
children in that wife, which constitute the statutory family for the purpose
of computing the ceiling area. Section 82 was understood and interpreted F
in that light by the High Court of Kerala ever since the Act came into force
and the High Court in the impugned judgment has only given effect to the
said position. A different view is not warranted specially at this stage when
the law laid down by the High Court and followed in the impugned
judgment has held the field for more than two decades. G

3. On hearing the rival pleas, we are of the view that the judgment
of the. High Court does not call for any interference.

4 . Section 2(14) of the Act defines 'family'. It states : H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997J 2 S.C.R.

A '"'Family" means husband, wife and their unmarried minor children
or such of them as exist.

Section 82 of the Act along with explanation is as follows :

"82. Ceiling area - (1) The ceiling area of land shall be, -
B
(a) in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting
of a sole surviving member, five standard acres, so however that
the ceiling area shall not be less then six and more than seven and
a half acres in extent;
c (b) in the case of a family consisting of two or more, but not more
than five members, ten standard acres, so however that the ceiling
area shall not be less than twelve and more than fifteen acres in
extent;

D (c) in the case of a family consisting of more than five members,
ten standard acres increased by one standard acre for each mem-
ber in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not be
less than twelve and more than twenty acres in extent; and

(d) in the case of any other person, other than a joint family, ten
E
standard acres, so however that the ceiling area shall not be less
than twelve and more than fifteen acres in extent.

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, all the lands owned or held
individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all
F of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held
by the family.

(3) In calculating the extent of land owned or held by a family or
an adult unmarried person, the shares of the members of the f amity
or the adult unmarried person, as the case may be, in the lands
G owned or held -

(a) by one or more of such members jointly with any person or
persons· other than a member or members of such family. or by
such adult unmarried person jointly with any other person or
H · · · persons; or
KATIITEVALAPPILPATIIUMMAv. TALUKLAND BD. [PARIPOORNAN,J.)181

(b) by a co-operative society or a joint family, shall be taken into A
·account.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the share of a
member of a family or an adult unmarried. person in the lands
owned or held jointly or by a co-operative society or a joint family
shall be deemed to be the extent of land which would be allowed B
to such member or person had· such lands been divided or parti-
tioned, as the case may be, on the date notified under section 83 .

. (4) Where, after the commencement of this Act, any class of land
specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of C
land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of
land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such
land shall be determined without taking into consideration· such
conversion.

(5) The lands owned or held by a private trust or a private D
institution shall be deemed to be lands owned or held by the person
creating the trust or establishing the institution, or, i( he is not
alive, by his successors-in-interest.

(6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under section .
81 shallbe excluded. E
Explanation I - For the purposes of this section, where a person
has two or more legally wedded wives living, the husband, one of
the wives named by him for the purpose and their unmarried minor
children shall be deemed to be one family and the other wife or
each of the other wives and her unmarried' filinor children shall be F
deemed to be a separate family.

Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, an adult unmar-
ried person shall include a divorced husband or divorced wife who
has not remarried : <
G
Provided that if-such divorced husband or divorced wife is the
guardian of any unmarried minor child, he or she together with
such unmarried child shall be deemed to be a family."

(emphasis supplied) H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A 5. Section 82 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division
Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Kesava Menon v. State of Kera/a and
Another, (1976) KLT 408. The facts of the case, the plea put forward and
the decision are neatly stated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the judgment thus :

"One Kesava Menon who has two wives owns extensive lands.
B While he has no issue through first wife he has issues t.hrough the
second but their number is not more than four. In the statement
he filed under section 85(2) of the Act regarding excess lands he
treated his two wives as members of two different families and
named the first wife as a member of his family. The Taluk Land
c Board treated his first wife as a member of his family and fixed
the ceiling area of his lands accordingly as for one family, namely
14.91 acres, and directed him to surrender the excess portion of
67.44 acres. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged in
these revision petitions, one of which is filed by Kesava Menon
D and his two wives and the other by the heirs of a transferee of some
of his lands.

xxx xxx xxx

The contention of the petitioners in these two Revision Petitions
E
is that if a person who owns lands has two wives and they have no
lands, as regards his lands the ceiling limit is that f o'r two f amities
and that is justified by Explanation I."

(emphasis supplied)
F
Delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench Narayana Pillay, J. stated
the Jaw thus :

"If a person has two wives, including them and his children
through them, as a matter of fact in the ordinary sense there is
G only one family. But Explanation I has introduced a fiction by
which he is allowed to treat the two wives with their children as
constituting two separate families. Along with the granting of that
privilege a restriction is also placed by the Explanation. The
restriction is that he can be a member of only one of such families
H to be chosen by him and not of both the families simultaneously.
KATIITE VALAPPIL PAIBUMMA v. TALUK LAND BD. [PARIPOORNAN, J.] 183

That the husband can be a member of only one of the families is A
an integral part of the Explanation. While sub-section (1) has fixed
the ceiling area sub-section (2) has prescribed the lands to be taken
into account in calculating the ceiling area of a family. Sub-section
(2) says that in calculating the lands owned by a family those owned
individually and jointly by the members of that family should be B
taken into account and Explanation I is an explanation to the entire
section including sub-section (2). The result is that although
notionally the second wife of Kesava Menon and her issues constitute
a separate family, as he is not a member of that f amity his lands
cannot be taken into account in fu:ing the ceiling area of that family.
Otherwise it would lead to the absurd consequence of having to C
take into account the lands of a stranger to a family also in fixing
the ceiling of. that family. If the husband cannot be a member of
both the families at the same time it inevitably f ollo~ that his lands
can be taken into account only in calculating the ceiling area of the
. f amity to which he is deemed to belong. It was the same conclusion D
that was reached by our learned brother, Viswilnatha Iyer J, in
Kuttan v. State of Kera/a and Others, (1976) KLT 49. In the present
case the Taluk Land Board was right in fixing the ceiling area of
the lands held by Kesava Menon as 14.91 acres and directing him
to surrender 67.44 acres as excess land."
E
(emphasis supplied)

.... 6. In a later decision in Mayilammal v. Taluk Land Board, (1984)
KLT 962 the declarant having two wives, opted to treat the second wife
and children as members constituting his family. The question arose as to F
whether the other wife and children should be treated as another f amity
entitling them to share the properties for the purpose of ceiling limits.
Bhaskaran, Acting Chief Justice, held thus :

' "It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that unless the first wife
and her children also are treated as a separate family entitled to
the properties of the declarant in the ceiling proceedings, it would
cause hardship as far as the first wife who is not named by the
G

declarant to be his wife for the purpose of the ceiling provisions,
and children born to the declarant in that wife. He submitted that
the purpose of the Explanation is to ensure that where the H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A declarant has more wives than one, then each with her minor
children should be treated as persons who are entitled to claim
share in the property for the purpose of the ceiling area. In other
words, according to him, it is only after setting apart sufficient land
permitted for two families, the extent depending upon the number
B of persons constituting each family, that the balance area should
be ordered to be surrendered. The scheme of the Act, according
to me, does not permit his interpretation inasmuch as the declarant
could be a member of one of the f amities only; and the determination
of the ceiling area has to be made with reference to his statutory
f amity, which includes himself, his wife nominated by him in that
c behalf, and minor children, if any, born in that wife. For that matter
even the major sons and daughters might fall out of the ambit of
the statutory family."

(emphasis supplied)
D

We are of the view that the aforesaid decisions lay down the law correctly.
The High Court was justified in holding that only the lands owned by the
husband and the family chosen by him (as per explanation I to section 82
E of the Act) will be taken into account for calculating the ceiling area of a
family. The land owned and possessed by the other wives and members of
their families will not be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the
ceiling area in respect of the statutory family constituted by the husband
as aforesaid. It is not permissible to treat the other wives and their children.
F as separate f amities and then to deduct the ceiling area for each of such
family from the total holding of the declarant husband. We concur with the
reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. We are further of the view,
that even if another view is possible, we are not inclined to take a different
view at this distance of time. Interpretation of the law is not a mere mental
exercise. Things which have been adjudged long ago should be allowed to
G rest in peace. A decision rendered long ago can be over-ruled only if this
Court comes to the conclusion that it is manifestly wrong or unfair and not
merely on the ground that another interpretation is possible and the court
may arrive at a different conclusion. We should remember that the law laid
down by the High Court in the above decision has not been doubted so
H far. The Act in question is a State enactment. These are weighty considera-
KATIITEVALAPPILPATHUMMAv. TALUKLAND BD. [PARIPOORNAN,J.]185

lions to hold that even if a different"view is possible, if it will have the effect A
of upsetting or re-opening past and closed transactions or unsettling titles

- all over the State, this Court should be loathe to take a different view. On
this ground as well, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment
under appeal.

7. The judgment of the High Court of Kerala rendered in C.R.P. No. B
1894 of 1988 is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.

V.M. Appeal dismissed.

--