Holding

Section 5(4)(a) does not apply to land acquired by a female after the commencement of the Act; "stridhana land" is limited to land held by a female on the date of commencement.

Summary

The appellant, M. Ramakrishnan, married in June 1960 and later inherited agricultural land from his mother who died in April 1962. The land bequeathed to his wife, Devika, was treated as part of the family holding and a surplus land determination was made under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the 8.81 standard acres received by his wife constituted "stridhana land" and should be exempted under Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The High Court held that "stridhana land" is limited to land held by a female on the date of commencement of the Act (6 April 1960) and therefore the wife's land was not eligible for the concession. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, interpreting Section 3(42) as giving a restricted meaning to "stridhana land" and holding that Section 5(4)(a) does not apply to land acquired by inheritance after the Act’s commencement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether land inherited or bequeathed to a female after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act qualifies as "stridhana land" under Section 3(42).
Whether Section 5(4)(a) of the Act can be invoked to grant additional ceiling exemption for such post‑commencement land.
How the definition of "stridhana land" should be interpreted in the context of the Act’s object and other provisions such as Section 21.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961s. 10(2)(b), s. 12, s. 21(1), s. 3(42), s. 5(4)(a), s. 7, s. 78, s. 8, s. 83

Subjects

land reformsceiling on landstridhana landinheritancebequestagricultural landinterpretation of statutesTamil Nadu

Judgment

396

A M. RAMAKRISHNAN
v.
STATE OF MADRAS
August 28, 1979
B [A. C. GUPTA AND E. S. VENKATARAM!AH, J}.]

Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceilings on Land) Act 1961-Ss.
3 (42), 5 (4)(a)-Scope oi-"Stridhana land"-Whether includes land inherit-
ed by female or acquired by her as bequest after the date of commencement
of the Act.
C The Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961
by S. 3 ( 42) defined '~tridhana land'' as any land held on the date of tho
commencement of the Act (April 6, 1960) by any female member of a family in
her own name, and S. 5 (4)(a) of the Act enabled such a female meniber to
bold, in addition to the extent of land whic!-, the family is entitled to bold,
stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres.

D The mother of the appellant had bequeathed to the appellant and his wife
certain agricultural lands by a will. The appellant being married 9n June 29,
1960 and his mother having died on April 20, 1962 i.e. after the Act ca.me
into force, the Authorised Officer passed orders treating the lands bequeatl:i<d
in favour of the appellant's wife as part of the holdings of the family consist-
ing of the appellant and his wife, and determined the extent of the surplus.
land to be surrendered. .--
E
The appellant's contention in his appeai under S. 78 of the Act before the
Land Tribunal, that the land which was bequeat!-,ed in favour of his wife by
his mother under the will \Vas stridhana land, waS accepted by it and the Land
Tribunal allowed the wife of the appellant to retain the land as stridhana land
under S. 5 (4)(a) of the Act an.d remitted back the case to the Authorised
Officer for making a fresh determination of the surplus extent of the land.
F
The respondent's revision petition under S. 83- of the Act was allowed, the
High Court holding that the land held by the wife was not 'stridhana land' as
defined under S. 3 (42) of the Act, and could not be treated as such while
detefmining the surplus land.

On the question whether the land in question was 'stridhana: land' and
G could be treated as such under S. 5 (4) of the Act while determining the sur-
plus land.

HEID : (I) The Higb Court was right in holding that S. 5 (4) of the
Act was not applicable to the land in question. [403 Fl

(2) The expression "stridhana land" used in S. 5 (4) (a) has been g!v'*
B a restricted meaning by S. 3 ( 42) of the Act which defines it as any land field
on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female member of j
family in her o.wu name. [401C]
M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. MADRAS (Venkataramiah, /.) 397

In the instant caso on the dote of the commencement of the Act i.e. April A
6 1960 the wife was not the owner of the land in question. She· acquired
title to it on April 20, 1962 on the death of the tesiatrix her mother. The
appellant cannot therefore claim any benefit under s. 5 (4)(a) of the Act.
[401C]
' (3) S. 21 of the Act under which the land in question becomes liable to
be included in the holding of the appellant for purposes of determination of B
the surplus land does not make any difference between stridhana property ot
a female ~quired after the commencement of the Act ·by inheritance or bequest
from any person and any other pro~erty held by her family. [401D]
_ ( 4) A reading of the definition of the expression "stridhana land" in S. 3
(42) of th~ Act and the provisions of S. 5(4) of the Act, indicate that the
State Legislature intended to extend the concession available under S. 5 (4)
of the •Act only to the land held by a female on the date of the commence- c
ment of the Act and not to land acquired by her thereafter. [401E]
(5) The object of the legislation is the acquisition of agricultural land in
excess of the ceiling area and distribution of the same amongst the landless
among the rural population. If the construction urged by the appellant is
placed on S. 21 ol the Act, the very object of the statute would be defeated.
There is also no room for construing S. 5 (4) (a) of the Act as being applicable
to agricul.utral land acquired by a female even after the commencement of the
Act. [401G, F]
(6) If the Legis!ature intended that lands acquired by way of inheritance
or bequest by a female on or after the commencement of the Act should also
be dealt with in accordance with S. 5(4), it would have defined the expression
"stridhana land" without the words "on the date of the commencement ·Of this
Act." [401Hj

,. (7) The Act is applicable to Hindus as well as others governed by other
txtrsonal laws. This indicates that the· expression 'stridhana' is not used in
the Act in the Sense1 in which it is used in Hindu law. [402A]

Valliammal v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore A.I.R.
1973 Mad 321, over-ruled. r
•
C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1592 of
1969.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
12th March, 1969 of the Madras High Court in Civil Rev. Petition
• No. 1791/67 . G
K. Jayaram and K. Ramkumar for the Appellant.
A. V. Rangam for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J.-This appeal by special leave is filed against H
the order dated March 12; 1969 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.
1791 of 1967 on the file of the High Court of Madras.
7-531 SCI/79
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A On the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Re-
forms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') i.e. April 6, 1960, the appellant owned approximately
47 acres of agricultural lands. He was required to file a statement under
iection 8 of the Act within,90 days from the date specified in the Noti-
fication issued by the Government in that behalf in respect of all lands
B held or deemed to have been held by him furniihing the particul!IIS
mentioned in that provision to the Authorised Officer within whose
jurisdiction his holding or major part thereof was situated. According-
ly, he filed bis return. In the course of the enquiry, the Authorised
Officer found that under a will made by Sivagalni Achi, the mother of
the appellant, who·died on April 20, 1962, the appellant became en-
c titled to 4.99 standard acres and his wife, Devita got 8.81 standard
acres of agricultural land. The Authorised Officer after
ascertaining the true extents of the several bits of agri-
cultural land held by the appellant on April 6, 1960, exempt-
ed 2.21 acres of land under section n of the Act and

• detennined the extent of surplus land which had to be surrendered
by the appellant under the Act at 12.803 standard acres on the basis
that the appellant's family which included his wife was holding 44-46
acres as also the land which the appellant and his wife got under the
will of Sivagami Achi. On the above bai;is, he directed the final state-
ment to be publish~ under section 12 of the Act. Aggrieved by the
E order of the Authorised Officer, the appellant filed an appeal before
the Land Tribunal i.e. the Subordinate Judge of Tbanjavur under sec-
tion 78 of the Act contending inter alia that the extent of 8.81 standard
acres which had been bequeathed in favour of his wife, Devika by his
mother Sivagami Achi under the will referred to above was stridhana
land and had to be dealt with aceordingly as required by section 5 ( 4)
F (a) of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the case of
the appellant that the extent of 8.81 standard acres acquired by Devin
on the death of Sivagarni Achi should be allowed to be retained by her
in addition to 30 standard acres. The case was, however, remitted back
to the Authorised Officer for making a fresh determination of the sur-
G plus extent of land in accordance with the order passed in appeal. The
State of Tamil Nadu filed a revision petition under section 83 of the
Act before the High Court against the appellate order. The High Court
'
allowed the revision petition holding that the extent of 8.81 standard
acres acquired by Devika was not 'stridhana land' as defined under
section 3 ( 42) of the Act and could not be treated as such while deter- j
H mining the surplus land. The High Court' further held that the la,nd
acquired by Devita: was governed by seetion 21 (1) read with section
10(2)(b) of the Act. This appeal is filed against the said order.
M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. MADRAS (Venkataramiah, 1.) 399

In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf Qf the parti- A
ei before m, it is necessary to refer briefly to some of the provisions of
the Act. . The Act was passed to provide for the fixation of ceiling on
'
\
I
agricultural land holdings and for certain other matters connected
' therewith in the State of Tamil Nadu. Having regard to the limited
extent of the area of agricultural Ja:nd available for cultivation in that
·State, the great disparity in the ownership of agricultural land leading
· to the concentration of such land· in the hands of certain persons, the
•
-.·• need for reduction of such disparity in the ownership of agricultural
land in that State and the necessity for fixing a ceiling on the Agricul-
tural land holdings, provisions were enacted in the Act fixing ii ceiling
on the agricultural land holdings and providing for acquisition of agri- c
cultural land in excess of the ceiling area and distribution of such land
amongst the landless and other persons among the rural population.
Section 3(11) of the Act defined the-expression "date of the com-
mencement of this Act" as the date on which the Tamil Nadu Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Bill, 1960 was published in
the Fort St. George Gazette, namely, the 6th day of April, 1960. •
Section 3 (34) ·of the Act defined the expression "person" as includ-
ing any trust, company, family, firm, society or association of indivi-
duals, whether incoroprated or not.
'1, Under section 3(14) of the Act, 'flimily' in relation to a ¢rSon 1:
meant the person, the wife or husband as the case may be, of such
person and bis or her minor sons and unmarried daughters and minor
grandsons and unmarried grand-daughters in the male line, whose
father and mother were dead.
Section 3(7) of the Act defined "ceiling area" a~ the extent of land
which a person Wl!S entitled to hold under section 5.
..
Section 3 ( 42) of the Act defined "stridhana land" as any land
held on the date of the commencement of the Act by any female
member of 'a female in her own name.
During the period in question, the relevant part of section 5 of the G
Act read as follows : -
"5. (1) (a) Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII,
the ceiling area in the case of every person and, subject to
the provisions of sub-sections ( 4) and ( 5) and of Chapter
VIII the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting B
of not more than five members, shall be 30 standard
acres .....
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R.

A ( 4 )(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section ( 5) ,
where the stridhana land held by any female member of a
family together with the other land held by all the members
of that family, is in. excess of 30 standard acres, the female

B
member concerned may hold, in addition to the extent of land
which the family is entitled to hold under sub-section (1), '
stridhana land not exceeding 10 standard acres. . . . . . . . . .. "
/
Section 7 of the Act read as follows : -
"7. On and from the dnte of the commencement' of .this
Act, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in this
Act, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIll, be ~
titled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area :
Provided that in calculating the total extent of land held
by any person, any extent in excess of the ceiling area nnd I
not exceeding half an acre in the case of wet land and one >-
acre in the case of dry land shall, irrespective of the assess-
ment of such land, be excluded."
·~
Section 21 of the Act read as follows : -
"21. Ceiling on future acquisition by inheritance, be-
quest or by sale in execution of decrees, etc.-
( 1) If, on or after the date of the commencement of this
Act-
( a,) any person acquires by inheritance or bequest from
any person; . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. any land, which, together
with ·the fand, if any, already held by him, exceeds in the
aggregate the ceiling area, then he shall, within ninety
F days from the notified date or from the date of such acqui-
. sition, whichever is later, furnish to the authorised officer
within whose jurisdiction his holding or the major part
thereof is situated, a return containing the following parti-
culars, namely .............. ·.....•.....•.... "
The lands which were bequeathed by Sivagami Achi, the mother
G of the appellant under a will were held by her on the date of tl!e com-
mencement of the Act. i.e. April 6, 1960. The appellant married
Devika on June 29, 1960. Sivagami Achi died on April 20, 1962 and
on her death, the appellant and Devika became entitled· to the land
bequeathed iii their favour by her. The draft statement rel.ilting to the
H holding of the appellant was published on May, 30, 1965 and the
Authorised Officer passed his order on March 14, 1966 treating the
lands bequeathed by Sivagami Achi in favour of the appellant and his
M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. MADRAS (Venkataramiah, 1.) 401
Y· A
wife as part of the holding of the family consisting of the appellant and
his wife. The case of the appellant before the Authorised Officer, the
Subordinate Judge and the High Court was that in view of section
5 ( 4)(a) of the Act, the ceiling area should have been fixed in his case
at 30 standard acres plus the extent of land bequeathed in favour of
his wife i.e. 8.81 standard acres. In this Court also, the very same
contention is urged. We are of the view that there is no substance
in this contention.
•
The expression "stridhana land" used in sect~on 5(4) (a) has been
given a restricted meaning by section 3(42) of the Act which defines
it as any land held on the date of the co=encement of the Act by
any female member of a family in her own name. Admittedly on the c
date of the co=encement of the Act i.e. April 6, 1960, Devika was
not the owner of the land in question. She acquired title to it only
on April 20, 1962 on the death of the testatrix. The appellant cannot,
therefore, claim any benefit under section 5 ( 4) (a) of the Act. Section
21 of the Act under which the land in question becomes liable to be
D
included in the holding of the appellant for purposes of determination
of the surplus land does not make any difference between stridhana
property of a female acquired after the conunencement of the Act by
inheritance or bequest from any person and any other property held
by her familyc From a reading of the definition of the expression "stri-
dbana land" in section 3 ( 42) of the Act and the provisions of section E
5 ( 4) of the Act, we are of opinion that the State Legislature intended
to extend the concession available under section 5 ( 4) ·of the Act only
to the stridhana property held by a female on the date of the com-
mencement of the Act and not to property acquired by her thereafter.
I

• It was urged by Mr. K. Jayaram, learned connsel for the appel13nt
that the Act was an expropriatory one and therefore, we should cons- F
true section 5 ( 4) (a) of the Act as being applicable to agricultural land
acquired. by a female even after the co=encemeut of the Act. We
do not think that there is any room for construing the said provision in
• that way. The object of the 1egislatiou as mentioned earlier was to
acquire agricultural land in excess of the ceiling area from the holders
thereof and to distribute the same amongst the landless among the
rural population. If the construction urged by the appellant is placed
on section 21 of the Act, the very object of the statute would be de-
feated. If really the Legislature intended that lands acquired by way
of inheritance or bequest by a female on or after the commencement
of the Act should also be dealt with in accordance with section 5 (4) , . H
it would have defined the expression "stridhana land" without the
words "on the date of the commencement of this Act." It has also to be
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1980] 1 S.C.R.

i A borne in_ mind that the expression 'stridhana' is no( used in the Aci in
the sense in which it is used in Hindu Law. The Act is applicable to
Hindus as well as others governed by other personal lawi. It is, there-
fore, reasonable to construe the expression 'stridhana land' at referring
only tb the land held by a female on the date of the commencement of
'
• the Act and not to lands inherited· by her .or acquired by her as a "-""
quest at any subsequent point of time.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the
High Court of Madras in Valliammal v. The Authorised Officer, Land
Reforms, Coimbatpre(') in which a contention 5imilar to the one
c urged before us on behalf of the appellant in this case had been accept-
ed. · The facts of that case were more or less similar to the facts in the
case before us. The petitioner in that case was the wife of one Palani-
sami Gounder who was in po6Session of an extent ·of 44.061 atandard
acres, after excluding the exempted lands, on the commencement of
the Act. She inherited 11.075 standard acres on the death of her IOU
D on March 25, 1962. In the return filed by him, the husband of the
petitioner claimed that he was entitled to retain 30 atandard acres
as holding of the family and that his wife, the petitioner in that case,
wa& entitled to hold 10 smndard acres as stridhana property. The
Land Tribunal, Coimbatore held that since the Act defined "1tridhana
land" as meaning any land held on the date of the commencement of
• the Act-by any female member of the family in her own name and since
the petitioner therein had inherited the land on the death of her son
only on March 25, 1962 i.e. subsequen~ to the commencement of the
Act, she was not entitled to retain any land as stridhana property in
addition to the extent of land which the family could retain under sec-
. tion 5 ( 1) . The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order of
the Tribunal before the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No. 916 of
f

1971. That petition was dismissed by Ganesan, J. on the ground
tha~ in view of the definition of stridhana land in section 3(42) of the
Act, the petitioner therein was not entitled to hold 10 standard acres
as stridhana property, in addition to the 30 standard acree allowed to •
the family consisting of herself 11nd her husband. Thereafter a peti-
tion was filed before the High Court by the petitioner therein t'o review
the order passed by Ganesan, J. The review petition came up for
decision before another learned Judge who allowed the laDle by his
order dated November 2, 1972. It is on the decision rendered on the
review petition the reliance is placed by the appellant before us. IJ:r
• paragi:aph 6 of that decision, it is observed as follows

(1) A.l.R. 1973.Mad. 321.
M. RAMAKRISHNAN v. MADRAS (Venkataramiah, J.) 403

"The learned· Judge, who heard the civil revision peti-
tion, mainly relied on the definition of 'stridhana property'
for holding that no woman is entitled to hold any stridhana
property if the same was acquired or inherited subsequent
to the co=encement of the Act. Of course, section
3 ( 42) defines stridhana land as meaning any land held on
B
the date of commencement of the Act by any female mem·
ber of a family in her o\Vn name. But that me-aning is to
be adopted 'unless the context otherwise requires'. It has
been repeatedly held that the word in the section will have
to be interpreted and understood in the context in which it
is used in the section and the definition given for that word c
in the definition section of the Act could not always govern

.. the interpretation withont reference to the context. In the
context of sections 5, 7 and 21 and with reference to the
scope and object of the Act, I am of opinion, that the proper-
ties inherited by females as stridhana property subsequent to
the commencement of the Act are also entitled to the benefit D
of sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the Act."
It is true that the above passage supports the case of the appelloant
but we are of the view that in the context of section 21 of the Act
it is not neccisary to give a meaning to the expression 'stridhani
land' different from what is stated in section 3 ( 42) of the Act. For E
the reasons already stated by us we hold that the aforesaid decision
does not lay down the law correctly. It is also to be observed that
the earlier decision of the High Court of Madras which is now under
appeal does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the
learned Judge who decided the above case.'
• We, therefore, hold that the High Court was right in this case F
in holding that section 5 ( 4) of the Act was not applicable to the land
in question.
It was lastly urged by Mr. K. Jayaram that in view of certain sub-·
sequent amendments made to the Act, the case has to be examined
•
afresh by us in the light of the amended law. We do not think that G
it is advisable to do so at this stage. It is open to the appellant if
he is so advised to resort to appropriate proceedings in order to
claim the benefit that he may be entitled to under the amended law.
Liberty is also reserved to the State Government to take whatever
action it may take under the subsequent amendments to the Act.
H
In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.