Holding

A conjoint reading of Sections 82(1)(a) and 84(1A) limits the exempted gift to not less than six acres and not more than seven and a half acres, so the Tribunal’s grant of six acres each was correct.

Summary

The appellant, P.V. Devassia, executed two gift deeds transferring 10 acres and 11 acres of land to his two married sons and sought exemption of those lands from the ceiling area prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Land Tribunal allowed an exemption of only six acres to each son, a decision affirmed by the Kerala High Court. The appellant challenged the limitation, arguing that the statutory ceiling permitted a larger exemption. The Supreme Court examined Sections 82(1)(a) and 84(1A) of the Act, interpreting that a donor may gift land not less than six acres and not more than seven and a half acres to a son or daughter. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal’s grant of six acres per son was within the statutory limit and found no error in the lower courts’ orders. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

What is the maximum extent of land that can be exempted from the ceiling area under Sections 82(1)(a) and 84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 when a gift deed is made to a son or daughter?
Whether the Land Tribunal’s award of six acres per son complies with the statutory ceiling provisions.

Legislation cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963s. 82(1)(a), s. 84(1A)

Subjects

land reformsceiling areagift deedexemptionKerala Land Reforms Actproperty lawstatutory interpretation

Judgment

\

A P.V. DEVASSIA
v. ·~

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

MARCH 1, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND .a.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963: Sections 82(1)(a) and 84(1A). Land
ceiling-Land owner making gi.ft of JO acres and 11 acres of land to two sons '
c
respectively-Exemption from ceiling in respect of such lands to the extent of
only 6 acres in favour of each son held right. 'Y,
The appellant executed two gift deeds bequeathing 10 acres and 11
· acres of land respectively in favour of his two married sons and applied
for exemption of those lands from his ceiling area prescribed under the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Land Tribunal gave benefit only to
D the extent of six acres in respect of each of the sons. The High Court
confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal. The appellant preferred an
appeal in this Court. "1-
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E HELD: A conjoint reading of Section 82(1) (a) and 84(1A) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 clearly envisages that if a gift deed is
executed by a person in favour of his son or daughter etc., the maximum
land which the donor is empowered to gift, would not be less than six acres
and not more. than seven· and a half acres of land in extent. The Tribunal,
F therefore, had rightly granted an extent of six acres of land to each of the ·:--.. .
appellant's married sons. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders of
the Tribunal and the High Court warranting interference. (431·H, 432-C]
').....
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiVil Appeal No. 4152 of
1995.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.88 of the Kerala High
Court in C.R.P. No. 1916 of 1984. ,,,.---
E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.

H M.T. George for the Respondents.
430
I
P.V. DEVASSIA v. STA1EOFKERA1A 431

The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
Court of Kerala in C.R.P. No. 1916/84 dated January 29, 1988. The appel-
lant has two married sons. He executed two gift deeds, Ex.R- 1 and Ex.R-2 B
bequeathing 10 acres and 11 acres respectively in favour of his sons. He
had applied for exemption of those lands from his ceiling area prescribed
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On remand by the High Court, the
Land Tribunal gave the benefit of six acres to each of the sons. For rest of
the land covered by the gift deeds, the revision petition was filed. The High C
Court confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the revision
petition.

Section 84(1A) reads thus:

"Section 84(1A): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1), D
or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority,
any voluntary transfer effect 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 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 E
shall be not to be, or ever to have been, invalid -

(a) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift does not exceed J
the ceiling area specified in clause (a) of sub- s.(1) of s.82; and
/
(b) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift exceeds the ceiling F
area specified in the said clause, to the extent of that ceiling area."

Section 82(1)(a) reads thus:

"Section 82(1)(a): In the case of an adult unmarried person or a G
family consisting of a sole surviving member, five standard acres,
so however that the ceiling area shall not be less than six and more
than seven and a half acres in extent."

A conjoint reading of these provisions would clearly envisage that a
gift deed executed between the period commencing from January 1, 1970 H
\
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A and ending with November 5, 1974 by a person owning or holding land in
excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or son or
daughter of the predeceased son or daughter shall not be deemed to be or
ever to have been invalid. The e·xtent of the land comprised in the gift
should not exceed the ceiling area specified in clause (a) of s.82(1), which
B in the case of an adult unmarried person or a family consisting of a sole
surviving member, shall be five standard acres, so however that the ceiling
area shall not be less than six and more than seven and a half acres in
extent. lh other words, if a gift deed is executed by a person in favour of
his son or daughter etc., the maximum land which s.82(1)(a) empowers the
donor to gift, would not be less that six acres and not more than seven and
·C a half acres of land in extent. The Tribunal, therefore, had rightly granted
an extent of six acres of land to each of his married sons. Therefore, we
do not find any illegality in the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court
warranting interference.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
D
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.