After the TRP was dismissed by the Special Tribunal by its judgment dated 25.4.95, the appellants have preferred this appeal against the said judgment.
Balaguruswamy and his wife should be excluded from his the 1st appellant holding as being Stridhana land of his wife.
It was held that it was rightly included in the holding of the first appellant by the Authorised officer.
Under the said document, each of them was allotted certain extent of the joint family property.
THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1998 Present Honble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Honble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Sivasubramaniam, Sr.
At the time of execution of said partition deed dated 24.9.1970.
The 1st appellants plea is that land of an extent o acres 36.74 allotted in favour of his wife, the second appellant Smt.
82/94.
on the basis that the wife of the first appellant was number allotted any property towards her right to maintenance against the joint family property, another partition deed dated 24.9.1970 was executed between the minor son.
The land ceiling authorities started proceedings under the Act for companyputing the admissible ceiling area which companyld be allocated to the first appellant under the Act.
This was the decision of the Authorised officer made on 18.9.1985.
A final statement was published in the gazette on 22.1.1986 under section 12 of the Act and thereafter a final numberification was published in the Gazette on 12.2.1986 under section 18 1 of the Act.
Against the said order of the Land companymissioner dated 25.9.86 W.P. No.
the said Balaguruswamy and his mother.
While doing so, the Authorised officer by his order dated 13.9.1985 held that even though the partition deed dated 24.9.1970 was a valid document having been executed between 15.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 as permitted by Section 21A. Still inasmuch as the second appellant was number in possession of this allotted land at the time of companymencement of this Act on 15.2.1970 as required by section 3 42 , the same companyld number be treated as her stridhana.
No objections were received from the appellants.
A preliminary statement to that effect was published in the Gazette in Form 7 on 18.9.1985.
the date of companymencement of the Act, was number sufficient for the purpose of treating the said property as held by the 1st appellants wife on that date and it must be established that she was in possession of the land as owner and in her own name as on 15.2.1970.
11055/86 was filed in the Madras High Court which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, after its Constitution and numbered as TRP No.
The case arises under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on land Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act .
i.e. wife of first appellant, Under this document towards the right to maintenance, the said Balaguruswamy allotted acres 36.74 in favour of his mother.
and T. Raja, Adv.
J. Leave granted This appeal is preferred by the two appellants namely G. Varadarajulu and Srimati V. Jayalakshmi who are respectively.
with him for the appellants.
for the Respondents.
82 of 1994 dated 25th April, 1995.
A. Krishna Moorthy, Adv.
V. Jayalakshmi in a partition Deed dated 25.9.1970 executed between the appellants son.
The following are the facts There was a partition deed between the first appellant and his son Balaguruswamy in the year 1959.
Within the meaning of the said expression in Section 3 42 of the Act, to the extent permissible under section 5 4 of the Act.
Against the said final numberification, a revision was preferred by both the appellants before the Land Commissioner at Madras .
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered JAGANNADHA RAO.
husband and wife, against the order passed by the Tamilnadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras in TRP No.
the son Balaguruswamy, being a minor, was represented by his father, the first appellant, as guardian.
The 1st appellant is the declarant.
The revision was rejected on 25.9.1986 holding again that the above said extent allotted to the second appellant in the partition Deed dated 24.9.1970 companyld number be treated as stridhana inasmuch as it was snot in her possession at the time of companymencement of the Act i.e. 15.2.1970 as required by section 3 42 and that it was number sufficient that she had a pre existing right of maintenance as on 15.2.1970.
