Holding

Lands voluntarily gifted to an unmarried daughter or granddaughter between 15‑Feb‑1970 and 2‑Oct‑1970 are excluded from the family holding for ceiling calculation, and the transfer is valid under Section 21A(b).

Summary

The appellant Govindasamy's father transferred 17.615 standard acres to Govindasamy's unmarried daughter Sumathi between the commencement (15‑Feb‑1970) and notified date (2‑Oct‑1970) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The land authorities included this gifted land in Govindasamy's family holding for ceiling calculation, leading to a surplus declaration. The appellant challenged this, arguing that under Explanation II to Section 3(14) and the exception in Section 21A(b), such a transfer should be excluded from the family. The Supreme Court held that the transfer is valid under Section 21A(b) and that Explanation II(a)(i) expressly excludes unmarried daughters or grand‑daughters who have received voluntary gifts from being counted in the family for ceiling purposes. Consequently, the gifted land must be treated as belonging to Sumathi as a separate person, and the authorities were directed to recompute the family holding without it. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether lands gifted to an unmarried daughter or granddaughter between the commencement and notified dates of the Act are excluded from the family holding for ceiling calculation under Explanation II to Section 3(14).
Whether Section 21A(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act creates a valid exception for such voluntary transfers made on account of natural love and affection.
Whether Explanation II(a)(i) applies only to transfers made by the person whose ceiling is being determined or also to transfers made by parents or grandparents.
Whether the earlier decision in C.S. Sampath & Ors. v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms (1993) is binding on the present question.

Subjects

Land reformsCeiling on landFamily definitionUnmarried daughterVoluntary giftSection 21AExplanation IITamil Nadu

Judgment

V.S. GOVINDASAMY (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. AND ORS. A
v.
_,,,,(
THE DIRECTOR OF LAND REFORMS, MADRAS AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

[M.M. PUNCHHI C.H., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.) B
r
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961-
S.3 (14)-Family-Section 3(34)-Person-Meaning of-S.5(1)-Scope of-
Lands gifted to unmarried daughter between the date of commencement of the
Act, viz. 15.2.1970 and the date of notification viz. 2.10.1970 by her grand c
father-Held : Not to be included in calculating the holding of the father's
family under the Act.

Ss.22 and 21A-Scope of-Parent of grand parent voluntarily
'
transferring fand on account ofnatural love and affection to any minor son,
D
-<.. unmarried daughter, minor grandson or unmarried grand daughter between
~ the date ofcommencement of the Act viz. 15. 2.1970 and the date ofnotification
viz. 2.10.1970-Held: valid.

Words & Phrases-Family-lvfeaning of in the context of Tamil Nadu
Land Reforms (Fixation uf Ceiling on land) Act, 1961. E
The date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation
of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 according to S.3 (11) of the Act was 15th
February, 1970 and the notified date under S.3 (31) was 2.10.1970. Father
of the appellant had executed deeds of settlement between 15.2.1970 and
2.10.1970 gifting an extent of 17.615 standard acres ofland to the unmarried F
daughter of the appellant under three documents. Authorities under the Act
~
r- while calculating the ceiling area of appellant's family included the lands
gifted to the daughter of the appellant by the father of the appellant. An order
was passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) holding that the
family of the appellant consisting of the appellant, his wife and unmarried
daughter had a surplus of 18.178 standard acres and directed the appellant G
to declare the same The appellant ftled an appeal in the Land Tribunal which
.,-J-- confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner in so far as it related
to the property of the appellant's daughter. The appellant preferred a Revision
before the Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal and it was dismissed on
the ground that the question stood concluded by a Judgment of this Court H
859
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A in Civil Appeal No. 4419of1989 dated 27.10.1993. Again~1 the Order of the
Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present
appeal.

The contention of the respondent was that clause (a) (i) of Explanation
II to S.3(14) which defines 'Family' would be a1>1>licable for determining the
B ceiling area of a person as S. (34) which defines 'person' includes any family
among others, only if there is transfer by that'person in favour of his/her
unmarried daughters or unmarried grand daughters.

Allowing the Appeal, this Court

C HELD: 1. An exception to Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act, 1961 is carved out in Section 21A
which ,-Vas inserted by the Amending Act 17 of 1970. Under clause (b) of that
section where any parent or grand parent has voluntarily transferred any
1
land on· account of natural love and affection to any minor son, unmarried
D daughter, minor grandson or unmarried grand daughter in the male line
after the. 15th day of February 1970, but before the 2nd day of October 1970,
•
such transfer shall be valid. Thus, the transfer by the appellant's father in
favour of the appellant's daughter in the male line is valid. (862-H; 863-A]

2. Clause (a) of Explanation-II to S.3 (14) refers to unmarried daughters
E and unmarried grand daughters. They shall not be included in the family if
in their. favour any land has been voluntarily transferred by either of their
parents or grand parents on account of natural love and affection. The
Language of the clause is very piain and the purpose of such exclusion is
also very clear. The Legislature did not want to club the properties of a
daughter which she has obtained absolutely by way of gift from her parents
F or grand parents with the other properties of the person whose ceiling area
is determined. If such clubbing is permitted, the father of the unmarried ·
daughter would conveniently declare the land exclusively gifted to her by her
grand father as surplus area and thus deprive her of the property given to
her by her grand father. (863-C-F]
G
C.S. Sampath & Ors. v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms,
Kancheepuram, (Civil Appeal No. 4419of1989 decided by Supreme Cou'rt
on 27.10.1993), distinguished.

Susi/a Devi Ammal & Ors. v. State ofMadras, (1993] Supp. 1SCC462,
H referred to.
~-
--(

V.S. GOVINDASAMY v. DIRECTOR OF LAND REFORMS [SRINIVASN, J.] 861
3. The lands gifted to the appellant's daughter by the father of the A
_,,(
appellant cannot be included in the holding of ap11ellant's family. With respect
to those lands the daughter has to be treated as a 'person' separately holding
the lands as full owner thereof. [863-D]

4. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) is directed to re-
-=- determine the holdings of the family of the appellant after excluding the B
'r-
lands gifted to the daughter of the appellant by her grand father. [864-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 797of1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.95 of the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras in T.R.P. No. 480of1991. c
R. Siva Sundravardhan and T. Raja for the Appellants.

M.A. Krishana Moorthy and Shivaji M. Jadhav, (NP) for the Respondents
1-4.
""- D
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SRJNIVASAN, J. Leave granted. The only question before us is whether
the lands gifted to Sumathi the unmarried daughter of deceased Govindasamy
by his father Swami goundar could be included in the holding of
- Govindasamy's family for the purpose of calculating the ceiling area. E
2. The relevant facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

3. The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling on land) Act 1961 .
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") received the assent of the President on
}-- 13th April 1962. It was amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction F
~--

of ceiling on land) Act 17 of 1970. According to Section 3(11), the date of
commencement of the Act means the 15th day cf February 1970. Section 3 (31)
defines the 'notified date' as the date specified by the Government in a
Notification which shall be a date after the publication of the Act. The
relevant notified date in this case is 2.10.1970. Between 15.2.1970 and 2.10.1970
Swami goundar had executed deeds of settlement gifting an ex1ent of 17. 615 G
~-
.....,,---~~ standard acres to his grand daughter Sumathi through his son Govindaswami
under three documents. When the Authorities under the Act initiated
proceedings to calculate the ceiling area of Govindaswami's family, they
included the lands gifted to Sumathi by her grand father. An order was passed
by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) holding that the family of H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A Govindaswarni consisting of himself, his wife and unmarried daughter had a
surplus of 18.178 standard acres and directed Govindasarni to declare the
same. On an appeal to the Land Tribunal, the order was confirmed in so far
as it related to Sumathi's property. A revision petition was filed in the High
Court of Madras which was later transferred to the Land Reforms Special
Appellate Tribunal, Madras on the constitution 1hereof. The Tribunal dismissed
B the revision by order dated 14.8.95 holding that the question is concluded by
a judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No 4419of1989 dated 27.10.1993.
It is that order which is challenged in this petition.

4. Section 5 (i) of the Act provides that 1he ceiling in the case of every
C person and the ceiling area in the case of eveiy family consisting of not more
than five members shall be 15 standard acres. The word 'person' has been
defined in Section 3(34) as to include any family among others. 'Family' is
defined in Section 3(14). The relevant part of the Section is in the following
tenns:
.
D .... (14) "family" in relation to a person means the person, the wife or
husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her :-

(i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and

(ii) minor grandsons and unmarried grand daughters in the male
line, whose father and mother are dead ....
E
Explantion II:- for the pmpose of this clause:

(a) iil the case of persons governed by Hindu law, "unmarried
daughters" and "unmarried grand daughters" shall not include
"unmarried daughter" or "unmarried grand daughters" -
F
(i) in whose favour any land has been voluntarily transferred by
either of whose parents or grand parents on account of natural love
and affection; or

(ii) in whose favour a preliminary decree for partition has been
G passed before the notified date ..... "

5. Section 22 of the Act empowers the Authorised Officer to declare a
transfer or a partition effected on or after the date of the commencement of
the Act but before the notified date to be void if he finds that the transfer
or the partition as the case may be defeats any of the provisons of the Act.
H An exception to the Section is carved out in Section 2 lA which was inserted
V.S. GOVINDASAMYv. DIRECTOR OF LAND REFORMS [SRINIVASN, J.] 863

by the Amending Act 17 of 1970. Under Clause (b) of that Section where any A
parent or grand parent has voluntarily transferred any land on account of
natural love and affection to any minor son, unmarriect'daughter, minor grandson
or unmarried grand daughter in the male line after the 15th day of February
1970 but before the 2nd day of October 1970, such transfer shall be valid.
Thus there can be no doubt that the transfer by Swami goundar in favour of
his unmarried grand daughter in the male line namely Sumathi is valid. B.
6. On that premise, if we consider the provisions of Section 3(14) she
shall not be included in the family of Govindaswami because of Clause a (i)
of Elqilantion II. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that clause
a (i) will apply only if there is a transfer by Goviudasami in favour of his C
unmarried daughter when the ceiling area of Govindasami is being detennined.
According to him the transfer by Swami goundar in favour of his unmarried
grand daughter Sumathi could exclude her from the family of Swamigonda if
and when a question arises with regard to the ceiling area of Swami goundar.
In other words, learned counsel wants us to read explanation II by adding the
word 'respectively' after the word 'grand parents' in clause a(i). There is no D
merit whatever in this contention Clause (a) of fa'Jllanation II refers to unmarried
daughters and unmarried grand daughters. They shall not be included in the
family if in their favour any land has been voluntarily transferred by either
their parents or grand parents on account of natural love and affection. The
language of the clause is very plain and the puq>ose of such exclusion is also E
very clear. Obviously, the Legislature does not want to club the properties of
a daughter which she has obtained absolutely by way of gift from her parents
or grand parents with the other properties of the person whose ceiling area
is determined. If such clubbing is pern1itted, the father of the unmarried
daughter would conveniently declare the land exclusively gifted to her by her
grand father as suq>lus area and thus deprive her of the property given to F
her by her grand father.

7. On a plain reading of Sections referred to above, we have no hesitation
to reject the contention urged on behalf of the respondents.

8. Reliance is placed by the respondents on the judgment of this Court G
in Civil Appeal No 4419 of 1989 - C.S. Sampath & Ors. v. The Authorised
Officer, Land Reforms, Kaacheepuram dated October 27, 1993. We have read
the judgment. It does not contain any discussion on the question. It has
merely affirmed the view expressed by the High Court.

9 .. Our attention is drawn to a para in the judgment of the High court H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A in that case which has been extracted in the order of the Special Appellate
Tribunal in the present case. A perusal of the same shows that ex facie it is
inconsistent and the reasoning is in violation of the language of Expiation II
of Section 3 (14) of the Act.

10. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in Susi/a
B DeviAmmal and othersv. State ofMadras 1993 Supp., 1 S.C.C. 462. That was
a case of partition during the relevant period and the High Court had overlooked
the provisions of Section 2lA of the Act. This Court set aside the judgment
of the High Court and remanded the matter to th.e Land Tribunal. That ruling
has no relevance in the present case.
c 11. In the view we have expressed earlier on the 'clear language of
Section 3 (14), we have no difficulty in concluding that the lands gifted to
Sumathi by her grand father Swami goundar cannot be included in the holding
of Govindaswami's family. With respect to those lands she has to be treated
as a 'person' separately holding the lands as full owner thereof. The judgment
D of the Special Tribunal and the orders of the Authorities below are
unsustainable. They are hereby upset. The Assistant Commissioner (Land
Reforms) is directed to re-detennine the holdings of the family of Govindasami
(deceased) after excluding the lands gifted to his daughter Sumathi by her
grand father Swami goundar. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be
E no order as to costs.

AK.T. Appeal allowed.

f\