TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the Board by order dated 28.6.1988 passed a fresh order determining 97.16 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 legal representatives contended that the declarant having three wives and ten children in the three 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 o each family has to be deducted from the total holding of the declarant. This plea was repelled by the High 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 purpose of determining the ceiling area as if they constitute one family. Regarding the other family constituted by the other wife and her 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 word, the properties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong 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 of 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 the ceiling area of a family. It was argued, that the lands owned of 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 o 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 in the 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 legal position. A different view is not warranted specially at this state when the law laid down by the High Court and followed in the impugned judgment has held the field for more than two decades. 3. On hearing the rival pleas, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to a surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. (5) The land owned or held by a private trust or a private institution shall be deemed to be lands owned or held by the person creating the trust or establishing the institution, or, if he is not alive, by his successors-in- interest. (6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under section 81 shall be excluded. Explanation I - For the purposes of this section, where a person has tow 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 minor children shall be deemed to be a separate family. Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, and adult unmarried person shall include a divorced husband or divorced wife who has not remarried: Provided that if such divorced husband or divorced wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 taken into account and Explanation I is a explanation to the entire section including sub Section (2). The result is that although nationally the second wife of Kesava Menon and her issues constitute a separate family, as he is not a member of that family his lands cannot be taken into account in fixing the ceiling area of that family. Otherwise it would lead to the absurd consequence of having to take into account the lands of a stranger to a family also in fixing the ceiling of the family. If the husband cannot be a member of both the families at the same time it inevitably follows that his lands can be taken into account only in calculating the ceiling area of the family to which he is deemed to belong. It was the same conclusion that was reached by our learned brother, Viswantha Iyer J, in Kuttan V. State of Kerala 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. (emphasis su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch 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 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 nor merely on the ground that another interpretation is possible and the court may arrive at different conclusion. We should remember that the law laid dow by the High Court in the above decision has not been doubted so far. The Act in question is State enactment. These are weighty considerations to hold that even if different view is possible, if it will have the effect 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
