1. The petitioner is the first wife of one Kanthaswamy Kounder, who in a ceiling proceedings opted to treat his second wife and children as members constituting his family. The petitioner's submission is that by virtue of the provisions contained in Explanation I to S. 82(6) of the Act, the petitioner and her minor children should be treated as another family entitled to share the properties of her husband for the purpose of ceiling limits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S. 82(6) of the Act reads as follows:—
“82. (6) In computing the ceiling area, lands exempted under S. 81 shall be excluded.
Explanation I. For the purpose of this section, where a person has two 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.”
2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that unless the first wife and her children also are treated as a separate family entitled to the properties of the declarant in the ceiling proceedings, it would cause hardship as far as the first wife who is not named by the declarant to be his wife for the purpose of the ceiling provisions, and the children born to the declarant in that wife. He submitted that the purpose of the Explanation is to ensure that where the declarant has more wives than one, then each wife with her minor children should be treated as persons who are entitled to claim share in the property for the purpose of the ceiling area.
3. In other words, according to him, it is only after setting apart sufficient land permitted for two families, the extent depending upon the number of persons constituting each family, that the balance area should be ordered to be surrendered. The scheme of the Act, according to me, does not permit his interpretation inasmuch as the declarant could be a member of one of the families only; and the determination of the ceiling area has to be made with reference to his statutory family, which includes himself, his wife nominated by him in that behalf, and minor children, if any, born in that wife. For that matter even the major sons and daughters might fall out of the ambit of the statutory family.
4. The counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner's minor children would be entitled to their share in the ancestral property in the bands of their father, the declarant, and that by treating the entire ancestral property as belonging to the declarant grave injustice would be done to the petitioner and her minor children, as they would be deprived of their right to property. I do not think that there is any substance in this contention. The land for which the declarant was to account would be only the property which belonged to him, and as far as the ancestral property is concerned, it could be nothing more than what would fall to his share, not the entire ancestral property as apprehended by the petitioner. In case the petitioner's minor children have been deprived of any property which they were entitled to inherit as ancestral property, by including such shares also in the land held or owned by the declarant it would certainly be open to the petitioner's minor children to redress their grievances by appropriate action.
5. Subject to the observation in regard to the right of the petitioner's minor children to agitate their cause, if any, with respect to the ancestral property stated to be in the hands of the declarant, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
6. Dismissed.