Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Sections 2(11) 2(22) and 6-Scope of. Whether a female who inherits a. share in a joint family property by reason of the death of a male member of the family automatically ceases to a member of the joint family by virtue of the, proviso to Section 6 of the Land Ceiling Act read with explanation I thereto, entitling her to a separate unit-Features of Hindu Undivided Family and coparcenary explained.

Sham Rao Bhagwant Rao Deshmukh, his son Narayan Rao, Sham Rao Deshmukh, his wife Sulochanabai and his mother Gangabai alias Taibai were members of a joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. The said family owned extensive property which included agricultural lands situated in fourteen villages. Sham Rao died on June 15, 1957 after the coming. into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and on his death his interest in the coparcenary property devolved on his son, wife and mother in equal shares under Section 6 of the Ceiling Act, such interest being the share that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the family property had taken place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. According to the law governing the above family which was governed by the Bombay School under which the mother also was entitled, a share at a partition between her husband and her son equal to that of her son one-third share in the family property could have been allotted to the share of Sham Rao immediately before his death had a partition taken place. That one-third share devolved in equal shares on Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai alias Taibai each inheriting offe-ninth share of the family property. They, however, continued to live together enjoying the family properties as before. As required by the Maharashtra Agricultural Ceiling Act which came into effect on January 26, 1962, Narayan Rao filed a declaration on be- half of himself, his mother, and his grandmother before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Saoner stating that they held in all 305.49 acres of agricultural land and that under a family arrangement entered into on March 30, 1957 they were holding the lands in distinct and separate shares, Narayan Rao holding one- half share and the other two holding one-fourth share each and that each of them was entitled to retain 96 acres which was the maximum extent of land which a person in that area could hold after the Ceiling Act came into force.

The Sub-Divisional Officer after enquiry held (i) that the alleged family settlement was not true; (ii) Narayan Rao, his mother and his grand-mother were joint in estate and constituted a family within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(11) of the Ceiling Act; (iii) the family could not, there- fore, hold agricultural land in excess of one unit of the Ceiling area; (iv) the family was entitled to 96 acres of land only out of 304.57 acres held by it on the appointed day; (v) as the family had alienated after August 4, 1959 about 44 acres of land in contravention of Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, it could retain only 51.16 acres; and (vi) the remaining extent of land measuring in all 222.32 acres must be declared as surplus land which had to be surrendered under the Ceiling Act.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narayan Rao, his mother and grand-mother filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal questioning the 'correctness of the said decision and that appeal was dismissed. Against the decision of the Tribunal they filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court accepted the contention that since the one-third interest in the family property which could have been allotted to the share of Sham Rao had he demanded a partition immediately before his death had devolved in equal shares on his heirs that is his wife, mother and son, the surviving members of the family ceased to hold the family property as members of a family and, there- fore, each of them was entitled to be allowed to retain one unit of the ceiling area under the Ceiling Act, allowed the writ petition and directed rhe Sub- Divisional Officer to pass fresh order in the light of its judgment. Hence the State appeal by special leave.