Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Decided
23 January 1984
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1984] 2 S.C.R. 451 · 1984 INSC 17

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

VENkATARAMIAH, J. The con.iention of the· petitioner in the above case ·is that on a tttie· construction .of.section read with section 2(gg) ·:of. the 11adhya Prad.esh Ceiling on Agric\i!tural Ho!din2s Ad, 1960 (Act No. 2o of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') each member of the family, including a minor son would become a holder entitled to a separate unit of the ceiling area. In other words, it is argued that a minor son who is deemed to be entitled to an area of joint family land proportionate to his share under sectfon 6(ii) of the .Act ·is entitled to claim a separate ceiling area independently. It is contended. that his share of land cannot be clubbed with the lan<l which can be claimed by his.father as his ceiling. area ..

pp. 451–452, margin F

We have heari:! Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He .'has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Act viz. section 2 (gg), section 6 and section 7 of the Act. The High Couri has 10egat'ved the above .wntention of the petitioner relying upon its ear.lier decision in Sarjubai & Ors.· v. State ofMddhya Pradesl1. & .Ors. (Misc. Petition No. ·Sil of 1979). We have gone through that decision. On going through the said decision, we find that it is correctly decided. We agree with the reasons given .in support of th~ said .decision. ft is ·in conformity with the view expressed by· this Court in Begulla Bapi Raju etc. etc. v: State of Andhra Pradesh.">

p. 452, margin B

Section 6(ii) of the Act does ·not have any effect on the ceiling area to which· a family as defined in section 2(gg) is entitled under section· 7.

p. 452, margin B

The petition is atcotdingly dismissed. S;R. Petition dismissed. (I) ,[1983].2.SCALE141.

p. 452, margin E