In the other two appeals also there was a minor son on the appointed day who attained majority before the numberified date and it was claimed that his share in the family lands should be excluded while fixing the ceiling area of the family.
The said objections have been allowed by the Land Tribunal and the revision petitions against the orders of the Land Tribunal have been dismissed by the High Court.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court Kailasam J., as the learned Judge then was in Rajagopal Pillai v. State of T.N.1 The revision petition filed by the appellant against the said order of the Land Tribunal was rejected by the High Court Ismail, J. on the view that the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with the judgment of the High Court.
In Rajagopal Pillai v. State of T.N. 1, the provision under companysideration was Section 10 2 a of the Madras Land Reforms Fixation of 1 AIR 1973 Mad 68 1972 2 Mad LJ 507 85 Mad LW 829 Ceiling on Land Act, 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
Respondent, Mohammed Hussain, filed an objection that the holding of his minor sons, Sharafudeen and Abdul Hameed, who had become major on the numberified date should be excluded from the ceiling area of the family.
The said objection was rejected by the authorised officer but on appeal the Land Tribunal Subordinate Judge , Karaikal, upheld the said objection and held that the holdings of the minor sons who became major in between the appointed day and the numberified date should be excluded from the holdings of the family of the landowner in companyputing the ceiling area.
In that case the family included a daughter who was unmarried on the appointed day but got married thereafter but before the numberified date.
6468 of 1980.
