{"id":39148,"date":"1977-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977"},"modified":"2015-10-05T02:00:23","modified_gmt":"2015-10-04T20:30:23","slug":"balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","title":{"rendered":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR  894, \t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 678<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBALKRISHNA SOMNATH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSADA DEVRAM KOLI &amp; ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/01\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  894\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 678\n 1977 SCC  (2)\t15\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Bombay  Tenancy &amp; Agricultural Lands Act,  1948  (Bombay\n\tAct  LXVII of 1948) as amended by Bombay Act Xlll  of  1956,\n\tsection 32--Scope of--Interpretation of the words  \"disabled\n\tperson's  share in the joint family  has  been separated  by\n\tmetes and bounds\" occurring in proviso to s. 32 F(1)(a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    Under s. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands\n\tAct 1948, the. tiller of the land had the right to  purchase\n\tthe land tenanted to him.  Where the landlord is a minor  or\n\ta widow or a person subject to any mental or physical  disa-\n\tbility,\t the right to purchase such land is  postponed\ttill\n\ttheir disability disappears and one year lapses\t thereafter.\n\tBut  this embargo on the exercise' of the right of  purchase\n\tby  the\t tenant\t does not operate as  per   proviso   to  s.\n\t32F(1)(a),  if\tthe property belongs to a joint\t family\t and\n\tthere is a partition therein and the land is allotted to the\n\tperson under disability.\n\t    In\tboth the appeals, the family owned lands  and  other\n\tassets\tand there was a partition confined  to\tagricultural\n\tland  only.  In one case the share fell to a widow while  in\n\tthe other it fell to a minor, admittedly a disabled'  person\n\twithin'\t the meaning of s 32F(1).  Before the  TribUnal\t and\n\tthe High Court, the landlord claimed, therefore,  protection\n\tunder the proviso to clause (a) of section 32F(1) of the Act\n\twhile the respondent contended that even if the agricultural\n\tland  had been divided and other assets admittedly  remained\n\tjoint, the appellant was ineligible to claim the benefit  of\n\tthe proviso.  The High\tCourt  decided against the  landlord\n\tand held: \"The proviso is not satisfied unless the share  of\n\ta  disabled person is separated by metes and bounds  in\t all\n\tthe  joint family property and unless the agricultural\tland\n\tallotted  to  him  corresponds to his share  in\t the  entire\n\tproperty and is not in excess thereof'.\n\tDismissing the appeal to this Court,\n\t    HELD:  (1) The broad idea is to vest full  ownership  in\n\tthe  tenantry.\tA compassionate exception is made in  favour\n\tof a handicapped  landlords  who' cannot prove their need to\n\trecover their  land  on\t approved  grounds.  The Legislature\n\tconditioned  the  proviso by insisting that  the  separation\n\tshould\tbe  from  the whole joint family assets\t and  not  a\n\ttell-tale  transaction\twhere agricultural lands  alone\t are\n\tdivided\t and secondly even where there iS a total  partition\n\tonly  a\t fair  proportion of the lands is  allotted  to\t the\n\tdisabled person. [682 C-D-F]\n\t    What  section 32F(1) insists upon is that (a)  share  of\n\tsuch person in the joint family has been separated by  metes\n\tand  bounds; (b). the Mamlatdar is satisfied that the  share\n\tof the disabled person in the land is separated in the\tsame\n\tproportion  as the share of that person in the entire  joint\n\tfamily property and not in a larger proportion.\t [681 G]\n\t    (3)\t The imperative condition for the operation  of\t the\n\tproviso\t is that there should be a total separation  and  so\n\tfar as a disabled member is concerned, it must cover all the\n\tjoint family properties.  The usage of the expressions\t\"the\n\tshare  of such person in the joint .family\", \"the share\t of.\n\tsuch  person,, in  the land\", \"the share of that  person  in\n\tthe,  entire  joint family  property  in   the\tsection\t the\n\tclear  statement in the proviso that the disabled  person  s\n\tshare in the joint family must have been separated by  metes\n\tand  bounds and the statutory exercise expected of the\tMam-\n\tlatdar\tby the proviso involving an  enquiry into the  share\n\tof the disabled person in the land and its value, the  share\n\tof  that person in the entire joint family properties,\tthe-\n\tproportion that the allot-\n\t679\n\tment  of  the land bears to his share in  the  entire  joint\n\tfamily\tproperty with a view to see that there is no  unfair\n\tmanouvre to defeat the scheme of the Act-lead to the  neces-\n\tsary  postulate that it is not confined to the share of\t the\n\tland  only  but really means his share in the  entire  joint\n\tfamily property.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t [683 E-H, 684 A]\n\t    (4) In the instant case there is no division of all\t the\n\tjoint family property. Only the landed properties have\tbeen\n\tseparated.  [684-B]\n\tObservation:\n\t    The\t reform of the inherited law-making methodology\t may\n\tsave  court  time and reduce  litigation.   Our\t legislative\n\tprocess,  not an unmixed blessing, works under such  instant\n\tstress\tand ad hoc hephazardness that the whole\t  piece\t  of\n\tlegislation when produced makes experienced draftsmen blush,\n\tas in the instant case, the involved drafting of s. 32F\t has\n\thad  its share in the marginal obscurity of  meaning.\t[682\n\tB-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1968,<br \/>\n\t  Appeal  by  Special  Leave from the  Judgment\t and   Order<br \/>\n\tdated  the  18-8-66 of the Bombay High Court in\t S.C.A.\t No.<br \/>\n\t1299\/67 and<br \/>\n\tCivil Appeal No. 2007 of 1969<br \/>\n\t    From  the Judgment and Order dated the 18th,  20th\tJune<br \/>\n\t1968 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1676 of 1964.<br \/>\n\tand<br \/>\n\tSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3175\/75<br \/>\n\t    From  the Judgment and Order dated the 31-10-74  of\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay, High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 2610 of 1970.<br \/>\n\t    V.M.  Tarkunde,  V.N. Ganpule and P.C.  Kapoor  for\t the<br \/>\n\tappellant in C.A. 129 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tS.N. Anand for Respondent No. 1 in CA 129\/68<br \/>\n\tV.N..Ganpule for the Petitioner in SLP<br \/>\n\tS.B.  Wad  and R.N. Nath for the Appellants in\tCA  2007  of<br \/>\n\t1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tR.B. Datar and S.C. Agarwal for Respondent No. 1 in CA 2007\/<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t69<\/span><br \/>\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\t    KRISHNA IYER, J.  These two appeals raise a short  issue<br \/>\n\tof  interpretation of the proviso to s. 32F (1) (a)  of\t the<br \/>\n\tBombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 (Bombay\t Act<br \/>\n\tLXVII  of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the\t Act).\t The<br \/>\n\tappellants  in both  the cases are the aggrieved  landlords,<br \/>\n\tthe  tenants&#8217;  right of purchase under the Act\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\n\tupheld\tby the High Court.  The correctness of this view  is<br \/>\n\tcanvassed ,before us by counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t   The\tfacts necessary to appreciate the rival\t contentions<br \/>\n\tmay be are different but the issue is identical and,  stated<br \/>\n\tbriefly.   The parties so a single judgment will dispose  of<br \/>\n\tboth the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t680<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    In Civil Appeal No. 2007 of 1969 the widow of a deceased<br \/>\n\tlandowner,  one Dattatraya, is the appellant.  The  deceased<br \/>\n\towned  several\thouses,\t had a\tmoney-lending  business\t and<br \/>\n\tconsiderable agricultural lands.  He left behind him on\t his<br \/>\n\tdeath  in 1952 a widow (the second appellant) and two  sons,<br \/>\n\tone  of whom is the first appellant. Admittedly the Act,  an<br \/>\n\tagrarian  reform measure, was extensively amended by  Bombay<br \/>\n\tAct  XIII  of 1956 conferring great rights  on\ttenants\t and<br \/>\n\tinflicting  serious mayhem on landlordism.  The case of\t the<br \/>\n\tappellants  is that there was a partition among\t the  mother<br \/>\n\tand  the two sons of the agricultural estate whereunder\t the<br \/>\n\tsecond appellant (the widow) was allotted around 80 acres of<br \/>\n\tland  out  of which about 15 acres were held  by  the  first<br \/>\n\trespondent  as\ta  tenant,  On\tthe  Tillers,  Day  tenants,<br \/>\n\tbloomed\t into owners by the conferment of the right of\tpur-<br \/>\n\tchase.\t On the basis that the first respondent\t had  become<br \/>\n\tthe  owner, a proceeding for the determination of  the\tpur-<br \/>\n\tchase-price  of these lands was initiated? by the  Tribunal,<br \/>\n\tas  provided under s. 32G of the Act.  Although\t notice\t was<br \/>\n\tnot  given  to\tthe second appellant,  the  first  appellant<br \/>\n\tappeared  before the Tribunal, urged the case that the\tland<br \/>\n\theld  by  the first respondent. was set apart  in  a  family<br \/>\n\tpartition  to  his mother, the second appellant,  and.\tthat<br \/>\n\tsince  she was a widow she came squarely within the  protec-<br \/>\n\ttive  provision of the proviso to cl. (a) of s. 32F(1  )  of<br \/>\n\tthe  Act.   The\t first respondent,  however,  contested\t the<br \/>\n\tpartition  and\tfurther pressed the plea that  even  if\t the<br \/>\n\tagricultural&#8217; lands had been divided since the house and the<br \/>\n\tmoney-lending business and other assets admittedly remained&#8217;<br \/>\n\tjoint, the appellant was ineligible to claim the benefit  of<br \/>\n\tthe proviso aforesaid.\tWe need not trace the history of the<br \/>\n\tlitigation from deck to deck but may conclude the story\t for<br \/>\n\tthe present purpose by stating that the High Court took\t the<br \/>\n\tview that the second appellant (widow did not qualify  under<br \/>\n\tthe said proviso: &#8220;The proviso is not satisfied&#8217; unless\t the<br \/>\n\tshare of a disabled person is separated by metes and  bounds<br \/>\n\tin all of the joint family property and&#8217; unless the agricul-<br \/>\n\ttural  land allotted to him corresponds to his share in\t the<br \/>\n\tentire\tproperty and is not in\texcess\tthereof.&#8221;&#8211;This\t was<br \/>\n\tthe  construction put by the Court on the proviso and  chal-<br \/>\n\tlenged\tbefore\tus by Shri Wad in C.A. 2007 of 1969  and  by<br \/>\n\tShri Tarkunde in C.A. 129 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    In\tCivil Appeal No. 129 of 1968 the legal\tscenario  is<br \/>\n\tsimilar. The family owned lands and other  assets and  there<br \/>\n\twas a partition on November 7, 1956 confined to agricultural<br \/>\n\tland only,  but the house property remained undivided.\t The<br \/>\n\tpartition deed shows that the land under the tenancy of\t the<br \/>\n\tfirst respondent has been set apart to the share of a  minor<br \/>\n\tappellant.  The Tillers&#8217; Day arrived&#8217;. The tenant claimed to<br \/>\n\thave become owner.  Proceedings under s.  32G of the Act for<br \/>\n\tdetermination  of&#8217; the compensation were commenced  and\t the<br \/>\n\tmantle\tof protection of the proviso to s. 32F (I)  (a)\t was<br \/>\n\tpleaded in vain.  The High Court having negatived the  land-<br \/>\n\tlord&#8217;s contention summarily, this Court has been approached,<br \/>\n\tthe point urged being the same as in the previous appeal.<br \/>\n\t    In both the appeals we my proceed, for testing the legal<br \/>\n\tpro. position, on assumed facts.  We may take it that  there<br \/>\n\twas a parti-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t681<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\ttion  in  both cases during the period referred\t to  in\t the<br \/>\n\tproviso,  i.e., before March 31, 1958.\tWe may further\ttake<br \/>\n\tit  that the widow and the minor come within  the   category<br \/>\n\tspecified in s. 32F (1) (a). We have also to proceed on\t the<br \/>\n\tbasis  that the joint family in each case has  other  assets<br \/>\n\twhich remain joint and undivided.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    Before proceeding further with the discussion it may  be<br \/>\n\tproper to read the relevant provision for a break up of the!<br \/>\n\tstatutory limbs:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    &#8220;32F.   (1)\t  Notwithstanding   anything<br \/>\n\t\t      contained in the proceeding sections-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    (a) where the landlord is a minor, or  a<br \/>\n\t\t      widow   or  a person subject to any mental  or<br \/>\n\t\t      physical disability the tenant shall have\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      right  to purchase such land under section  32<br \/>\n\t\t      within one year from the expiry of the  period<br \/>\n\t\t      during  which  such landlord  is\tentitled  to<br \/>\n\t\t      terminate the tenancy under section 31 and for<br \/>\n\t\t      enabling\tthe tenant to exercise the right  of<br \/>\n\t\t      purchase,\t the landlord shall send an  intima-<br \/>\n\t\t      tion  to\tthe tenant of the fact that  he\t has<br \/>\n\t\t      attained\tmajority, before the expiry  of\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      period during which such landlord is  entitled<br \/>\n\t\t      to terminate the tenancy under section 31:<br \/>\n\t\t\t  Provided  that  where\t a  person  of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t\t      category\tis a member of a joint\tfamily,\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      provisions  of  this   sub-section  shall\t not<br \/>\n\t\t      apply  if\t at least one member  of  the  joint<br \/>\n\t\t      family is outside the categories mentioned  in<br \/>\n\t\t      this sub-section unless before the 31st day of<br \/>\n\t\t      March  1958  the share of such person  in\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      joint  family has been separated by metes\t and<br \/>\n\t\t      bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is  satis-<br \/>\n\t\t      fied that the share of such person in the land<br \/>\n\t\t      is  separated,  having  regard  to  the  area,<br \/>\n\t\t      assessment,  classification and value  of\t the<br \/>\n\t\t      land,  in the same proportion as the share  of<br \/>\n\t\t      that person in the entire joint family proper-<br \/>\n\t\t      ty, and not in a larger proportion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t       X\t X\t  X\t      X&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>\t    Where  the\tlandlord is a minor or a widow, as  in\tthis<br \/>\n\tcase,  the tenants&#8217; fight to purchase such land under s.  32<br \/>\n\tis  postponed till their disability disappears and one\tyear<br \/>\n\tlapses thereafter. But this embargo. on the exercise of\t the<br \/>\n\tfight  of  purchase by the tenant does not  operate  if\t the<br \/>\n\tproperty belongs to a joint family and there is a  partition<br \/>\n\ttherein\t and the land in question is allotted to the  person<br \/>\n\tunder disability.  What the section insists upon is that (a)<br \/>\n\tshare of such person in the joint family has been  separated<br \/>\n\tby metes and bounds; and (b) the Mamlatdar is satisfied that<br \/>\n\tthe  share  of such person in the land is separated  in\t the<br \/>\n\tsame  proportion as the share of that person in\t the  entire<br \/>\n\tjoint-family property and not in a larger proportion.<br \/>\n\t    We are dealing with an agrarian reform law whose  avowed<br \/>\n\tobject\tis to confer full proprietorship on tilling  tenants<br \/>\n\tand it is a fact of common knowledge that  landlords  resort<br \/>\n\tto  cute   agrarian   legal engineering\t to  circumvent\t the<br \/>\n\tprovisions.  The legislature, with local knowledge of famil-<br \/>\n\tiar manipulations and manouvres\t calculated  to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t682<\/span><br \/>\n\tdefeat\tland  reforms, makes  widely-worded  provisions\t the<br \/>\n\t&#8216;why&#8217;  of it may not be easily discernible to the Court.  We<br \/>\n\thave to give full force and effect without whittling down or<br \/>\n\tsupplying words.  Nor can the Court presume the mischief and<br \/>\n\tremedy the evil by interpretative truncation. A blend of the<br \/>\n\tgrammatical  and the teleological modes of  construction  is<br \/>\n\tthe best and that is what has been done by the High Court.<br \/>\n\t    We\tare free to agree that the involved drafting of\t the<br \/>\n\tsection\t has  had  its share in the  marginal  obscurity  of<br \/>\n\tmeaning.  But our legislative process, not an unmixed bless-<br \/>\n\ting, works  under such\tinstant stress and ad hoc haphazard-<br \/>\n\tness  that the whole piece when produced  makes\t experienced<br \/>\n\tdraftsmen blush.  Reform of the inherited lawmaking  method-<br \/>\n\tology may save court time and reduce litigation.  Be that as<br \/>\n\tit may, we have to wrestle with the language of the  Proviso<br \/>\n\tto decode its true sense.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The broad idea is to vest full  ownership in the  tenan-<br \/>\n\ttry.  A compassionate exception is made in favour of  handi-<br \/>\n\tcapped\tlandlords  who cannot prove their need\tto   recover<br \/>\n\ttheir land on  approved grounds.  These disabled  categories<br \/>\n\tinclude\t  infants  and\twidows. But if the lands  belong  to<br \/>\n\tjoint families of which they are members, the raison  d&#8217;etre<br \/>\n\tfor such protection  does  not\texist  because\tthe  manager<br \/>\n\tof  this joint family takes care of its\t collective   inter-<br \/>\n\tests.  Where,  however, there has been a  partition  of\t the<br \/>\n\tjoint family, then the widow or minor has to stand on her or<br \/>\n\this  own disabled legs and so the Proviso to s. 32F (1)\t (a)<br \/>\n\twas brought in by amendment to give them protection for\t the<br \/>\n\tperiod of the disability and a little longer. But every ruse<br \/>\n\tto  save the lands is used by landlords and so, once it\t was<br \/>\n\tin  the air that minors and widows may be exempted, a  spate<br \/>\n\tof  partitions\tperhaps ensued.\t Joint living is  the  dear,<br \/>\n\ttraditional  Hindu way of life but jettisoning jointness  to<br \/>\n\tsalvage\t ,land\tis  dearer still.   Blood  is  thicker\tthan<br \/>\n\twater,\tit  has\t  been said; but  in   this  mundane  world,<br \/>\n\tproperty is thicker than blood:\t So partition deeds, conven-<br \/>\n\tiently\tconfined to land, became a popular art\tof  extrica-<br \/>\n\ttion.  And the Legislature, anxious to inhibit\tsuch  abuse,<br \/>\n\twhile  willing to exempt genuine, total separations,  condi-<br \/>\n\ttioned the Proviso under consideration by insisting that the<br \/>\n\tseparation should be from the whole joint family assets\t and<br \/>\n\tnot a tell-tale transaction where agricultural lands  .alone<br \/>\n\tare divided and secondly, even where there is a total parti-<br \/>\n\ttion,  only a fair proportion of the lands is  allotted\t  to<br \/>\n\tthe disabled person.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    In this light, we may read the Proviso.  To steer  clear<br \/>\n\tof  possible confusion we may agree that partial   partition<br \/>\n\tmay  be\t  legally  permissible and the Hindu  law  does\t not<br \/>\n\trequire\t investigation\tinto the motives  or  motivelessness<br \/>\n\tbehind\tthe  partition.\t  We also accept  that\tdivision  in<br \/>\n\tstatus is good enough to end commensality or jointness under<br \/>\n\tthe  personal  law.  But we are now in the  jurisdiction  of<br \/>\n\tland reform legislation\t and the  Legislature,\twith a\tview<br \/>\n\tto   fulfil its objectives, may prescribe  special  require-<br \/>\n\tments.\t The  Court   has  to give effect to  them,  in\t the<br \/>\n\tspirit\tof agrarian reform and not read down the wide  words<br \/>\n\ton judicial suppositions.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t683<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    Here the Proviso can rescue the widow or the minor\tonly<br \/>\n\tif  the prerequisites are fairly and fully fulfilled.\tSec-<br \/>\n\ttion  32  states that the tenants shall be  deemed  to\thave<br \/>\n\tpurchased the tenanted land on the Tillers&#8217; Day.  The Tribu-<br \/>\n\tnal  suo motu takes action to determine the purchase  price.<br \/>\n\tBut all this is kept in abeyance if the landlord belongs  to<br \/>\n\tthe  disabled category and qualifies under s. 32F (1).\t The<br \/>\n\tcrucial\t issue\tis whether the Proviso applies even  if\t the<br \/>\n\tseparation  of the widow or minor is restricted to  agricul-<br \/>\n\ttural  lands.  Shri Wad and, Shri Tarkunde  vehemently\turge<br \/>\n\tthat  it  is none of the concern of the\t agrarian  law\twhat<br \/>\n\thappens to the other assets of the joint family, so long  as<br \/>\n\tthe  lands  are\t divided in fair  proportion.\tShri   Datar<br \/>\n\tpresses what the High Court has laconically reasoned,  viz.,<br \/>\n\tthat it is possible to defeat the scheme by division of\t the<br \/>\n\tlands  alone.\tFox one thing, in most such  partial  parti-<br \/>\n\ttions,\tinspired by the desire to avoid the land reforms  in<br \/>\n\tthe  offing,  the  Legislature can, as\ta  policy  decision,<br \/>\n\tinsist\ton a whole partition, to reduce the evasion.   More-<br \/>\n\tover,  there  will be a sudden fancy for allotting  all\t the<br \/>\n\tgood lands to the share of widows and minors, depriving\t the<br \/>\n\ttenants of their legitimate expectations. And, if lands\t and<br \/>\n\tother  assets are to be divided, then less lands will go  to<br \/>\n\tthe  disabled persons or even none.  For instance the  house<br \/>\n\tmay  be\t allotted to the widow and the lands taken  over  by<br \/>\n\tadult  males.\tThe ornaments may all go to the\t woman,\t the<br \/>\n\tagriculture  to\t the men.  We need not\tspeculate,  but\t may<br \/>\n\tcontent\t  ourselves with stating that the  Legislature\thas,<br \/>\n\tfor  some  reasons, decided to lay down conditions  and\t the<br \/>\n\twords of the text must be assigned full effect.<br \/>\n\t    The\t Proviso clearly states that the  disabled  person&#8217;s<br \/>\n\tshare  &#8216;in the joint family&#8217; must have\tbeen  &#8216;separated  by<br \/>\n\tmetes  and  bounds&#8217;. Separation from the joint family  means<br \/>\n\tseparation  from all the joint family assets. Otherwise\t the<br \/>\n\tsharer\tremains\t partly joint and, to that  extent,  is\t not<br \/>\n\tseparated from the joint family. Notional division or  divi-<br \/>\n\tsion  in status also may not be enough because the  Act\t in-<br \/>\n\tsists  on  separation  &#8216;by metes  and  bounds&#8217;.\t  Ordinarily<br \/>\n\t&#8216;metes and  bounds&#8217; are appropriate to real property,  mean-<br \/>\n\ting,  as the phrase does, &#8216;the boundary lines of land,\twith<br \/>\n\ttheir  terminal\t points and angles&#8217;.  In  the  context,\t the<br \/>\n\tthrust\tof the expression is that the division must be\tmore<br \/>\n\tthan notional but actual, concrete, clearly demarcated.\t The<br \/>\n\tineptness and involved structure and some ambiguity notwith-<br \/>\n\tstanding, the sense of the sentence is clear.  The share  of<br \/>\n\ta   person in the joint\t family, plainly  understood,  means<br \/>\n\this share in all the joint family properties and not  merely<br \/>\n\tin  the real estate part.  What is  more, the  section\tuses<br \/>\n\tthe  expressions  &#8216;the\tshare of such person  in  the  joint<br \/>\n\tfamily&#8217;, &#8216;the share of such person in the land&#8217;, &#8216;the  share<br \/>\n\tof  that person in the entire joint family property&#8217;.\tThus<br \/>\n\tit  is reasonable to hold that when the expression  used  is<br \/>\n\t&#8216;the share of such person in the point family.&#8217;, it is\tnot&#8217;<br \/>\n\tconfined to the share in the land only.\t It really means his<br \/>\n\tshare &#8216;in the entire joint family property&#8217;.  Moreover,\t the<br \/>\n\tstatutory exercise expected of the Mamlatdar by the  Proviso<br \/>\n\tinvolves an enquiry into the share of the disabled person in<br \/>\n\tthe  land,  and its value, the share of that person  in\t the<br \/>\n\tentire joint family property, the proportion that the allot-<br \/>\n\tment of the land bears to his share in the entire joint<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t684<\/span><br \/>\n\tfamily\tproperty with a view to see that there is no  unfair<br \/>\n\tmanouvre  to defeat the scheme of the Act.   The   necessary<br \/>\n\tpostulate  is that there is a division in the  entire  joint<br \/>\n\tfamily\tproperty.  Therefore, the imperative  condition\t for<br \/>\n\tthe operation of the Proviso is that there should be a total<br \/>\n\tseparation  and so far as a disabled member is concerned  it<br \/>\n\tmust cover all the joint family properties.<br \/>\n\t    We\tare therefore in agreement with\t the  interpretation<br \/>\n\tadopted by the High Court.  In the cases under appeal  there<br \/>\n\tis no division of all the joint family properties.  Only the<br \/>\n\tlanded properties have been separated.\tThe appeals   there-<br \/>\n\tfore  fail  and\t are dismissed.\t In  the  circumstances,  we<br \/>\n\tdirect parties to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tS.R.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeals\tdis-\n\tmissed.\n\t685.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 894, 1977 SCR (2) 678 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: BALKRISHNA SOMNATH Vs. RESPONDENT: SADA DEVRAM KOLI &amp; ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/01\/1977 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. GUPTA, A.C. CITATION: 1977 AIR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2638,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\",\"name\":\"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977","datePublished":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977"},"wordCount":2638,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977","name":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T20:30:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkrishna-somnath-vs-sada-devram-koli-another-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balkrishna Somnath vs Sada Devram Koli &amp; Another on 20 January, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}