SMT. VIRAJ KUNWAR AND ORS. versus II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.

SMT. VIRAJ KUNWAR AND ORS. versus II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.

A judicially separated wife cannot be treated as an independent tenure-holder while her husband is a tenure-holder within the meaning of Section 3(17) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; thus, land held by her and the minors cannot be separately computed, and must be aggregated with the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Viraj Kunwar; Respondent: II Addl. Distt. Judge; Respondent (3rd): Nirmal Kumar Jain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ceiling on Land Holdings, Definition of 'tenure Holder', Judicial Separation and Property Rights
Land Law Ceiling on Land Holdings Definition of 'tenure Holder' Judicial Separation and Property Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Viraj Kunwar

Appellant

II Addl. Distt. Judge

Respondent

Nirmal Kumar Jain

Respondent (3rd)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judicially separated wife can be considered an independent tenure-holder under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, when her husband is a tenure-holder

Ratio Decidendi

A judicially separated wife cannot be treated as an independent tenure-holder while her husband is a tenure-holder within the meaning of Section 3(17) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; thus, land held by her and the minors cannot be separately computed, and must be aggregated with the holding of the husband.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.