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

K.A. PAUL AND ORS. versus TALUK LAND BOARD, ALATHUR AND ORS.

Decided
15 December 1992
Judges listed
T.K. THOMMEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 556 · 1992 INSC 342

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.

DR. THOMMEN, J. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a deed of gift executed after 1.1.1970 by a person in favour of two sons of her busband- by his first wife is attracted by the validating provision contained in sub-section (lA) of Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964). The facts are not in dispute. The only point for decision is whe'ther the expression 'son or daughter' includes a stepson or a stepdaughter. ·

p. 557, margin C

Appellants 1 and 2 are the donees and appellant 3, who is their stepmother, is the donor. The deed was executed between 1.1.1970 and 5.11.1974, which is the crucial period to attract the validating provision contained in sub-section (lA).

p. 557, margin D

Section 84 declares certain voluntary transfers to be null and void. However, the Section was amended by Act 19of1979 inserting sub-section (lA) which, insofar as it is material, reads:- "S. 84(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection ( 1 ), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any voluntary transfer effected by means of a gift deed executed during the period commencing on the 1st day of January, 1970 and ending with the 5th day of November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid-

p. 557, margin E

Does the expression 'son or daughter' include a stepson or a stepdaughter? The learned Judge held:- " ...... What is validated by Sec. 84(1A) of the Act is only a gift 'by a person owning or holding land in excess of ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his pre~deceased son or daughter. The stress is on the word 'his' which qualifies the expressions son or daughter. Unless the donee is the son or daughter of the donor, the gift will not attract the operation of Sec. 84(1A) of the

p. 558, margin A

Act ........ ".

p. 558, margin B

We see no reason why sub-section (1A) which was inserted with a view to validating certain gifts, which would have been otherwise invalid, should be read so narrowly as to exclude a bona fide gift made by a st~pmother in favour of the children born to her husband by his former wife. A stepson is as much a member of the family as a son is. Any construction to the contrary would be inconsistent with the legislative intent manifested in sub-section (1A) of Section 84.

p. 558, margin C

Accordingly we hold that, on the present facts, appellants 1 and 2 being the stepsons of the third appellant were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 84. The judgment of the High Court .to the contrary is accordingly s.et aside and the Land Board is dkected to pass appropriate orders in the light of what is stated above in regard to the ·afore-mentioned claim of the appellants. The appeal is allowed in the above tf.'(_IDS. However, we make no order as to costs. J.B. Appe.al allowed.

p. 558, margin C