il Appeal No 1178 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 15 16 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No 2061 of 1963
V A Seyid Muhammad and section P Nayar for the appellant
N N Keswani for the respondents
This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing 441 a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani challenging the order of the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under the 44 of 1954 hereafter referred to as the Act disallowing the writ petitioner s revision from the order of the Settlement Officer with delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner which had affirmed on appeal the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer
The writ petitioner s case was held to fall within r 193 of the Displaced Persons C  R Rules hereafter called the Rules made by the Central Government under section 40 of the Act
The question which falls for decision is a very short one and it relates to the meaning and effect of r 193
The facts are not in dispute
Kishanchand Dayaram Vachhani and his four sons Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani Dayaram A Vachhani Ramchand Dayaram Vachhani and Kanayalal Dayaram Vachhani constituted a joint Hindu family when as a result of partition of the country in 1947 they migrated from Sind now in Pakistan to India
After their migration Kishanchand Dayaram Vachhani the father made an application for vertification of claim in respect of the properties left by the joint Hindu family in Sind
This claim was duly verified
It is unnecessary to make a detailed reference to the history of the case
Suffice it to say that on October 28 1961 Shri Purshottam Sarup Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner Rehabilitation Department allowed the appeal preferred by Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani from the order of Shri H K Chaudhary Regional Settlement Commissioner Bombay dated May 14 1961 and after setting aside the impugned order directed that the property
in question be treated as joint family property in which the parties would be entitled to apportionment as members of joint Hindu family in accordance with the Rules
Pursuant to this direction Shri K section Bedi Assistant Settlement Officer Bombay on June 12 1963 directed that the case be re processed
Shri Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani appealed from this order to the Settlement Officer with delegated powers of the Regional Settlement Commissioner but without success
That officer recorded a fairly exhaustive order dated October 21 1963 in which the entire history of the case was noticed
A revision was taken to the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner Shri Purshottam Sarup with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner
That officer also went into the controversy at some length and by his order  dated February 13 1964 disallowed Shri Arjandas Dayaram Vachhani s claim both under r 20 and r 192
of the Rules
It was pointed out that in his Shri Purshottam Sarup s earlier order it had 442 been clearly stated that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family and were entitled to apportionment
The father and the sons could not be treated as separate and that their claim as tenants in common or as co sharers was contrary to his earlier decision which had remained unchallenged
In view of sub r
3 of r 19 r 192 was held inapplicable
On an application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu tion the High Court disagreed with the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and held r 193 to be inapplicable when the joint Hindu family consists only of father and his sons
On this view the order of the departmental authorities was set aside
The short question which now falls for our determination in this appeal is whether the sons of Kishanchand Dayaram Vachhani are entitled to claim the benefit of r 192 which has been granted by the High Court on their writ petition in disagreement with the view of the departmental authorities which excluded the claim of the sons under r 193
Rule 19 may here be re ad Special provision for payment of compensation to joint families  1 Where a claim relates to properties left by the members of an undivided Hindu family in West Pakistan hereafter referred to as the joint family compensation shall be computed in the manner hereinafter provided in this rule
2 Where on the 26th September 1955 hereinafter referred to as the relevant date the joint family consisted of a two or three members entitled to claim partition the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into two equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share b four or more members entitled to claim partition the compensation payable to such family shall be computed by dividing the verified claim into three equal shares and calculating the compensation separately on each such share
3 For the purpose of calculating the number of the members of a joint family under sub rule 2 a person who on the relevant date a was less than 18 years of age 443 b was a lineal descendant in the main line of another  living member of joint Hindu family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded  Provided that where a member of a joint family has died during the period commencing on the 14th August 1947 and ending on the relevant date leaving behind on the relevant date all or any of the following heirs namely a a widow or widows b a son or sons whatever the age of such son or sons but no lineal ascendant in the main line then all such heirs shall notwithstanding anything contained in this rule be reckoned as one member of the joint Hindu family
Explanation  For the purpose of this rule the question whether a family is joint or separate shall be determined with reference to the status of the family on the 14th day of August 1947 and every member of a joint family shall be deemed to be joint notwithstanding the fact that he had separated from the family after that date
 According to the High Court the other living member of the joint Hindu family whose lineal descendants are to be excluded under sub r 3 b must be a person other than their own father
This view in our opinion is  contrary to the plain words used in this sub rule
The High Court expressed its opinion in these words It is clear that this condition is intended to apply to a case where a joint family consists of more than two persons where each one of them is entitled to claim partition and the members sought to be excluded are lineal descendants of one of such members
It is only in such cases that it could be said that they were lineal descendants of a member who was  entitled to claim partition against another
In the present case the father and each of the sons is entitled to claim partition against each other
If the lineal descendants are to be excluded even in a case like the present it only means that all the descendants of the father must be excluded even though there is no other member against whom the father can seek to enforce partition
Having regard to the words used the only interpretation which can be placed on clause b of sub rule 3 of r 19 is the one adopted by us
 444 The error into which the High Court seems to have fallen is that it has assumed that a person against whom partition can be claimed by the father  of the lienal descendants constituting the joint Hindu family must be some member of that family other than his lienal descendants and that it excludes his right to claim partition when the only other members of the joint family are his own lineal descendants
Far this assumption there does not seem to us to be any
justification either in the language or in the scheme of the Act and the rules or in any other provision of law applicable to the parties before us and governing the present controversy
According to the general provisions of Hindu law the father in a joint Hindu family has the power to partition the joint family property and indeed in the present case the High Court has accepted the legal position that the father and each of his sons are entitled to claim partition against each other
It is only on the language of r 193 and as the judgment under appeal suggests on that Court s disinclination to accept as proper the exclusion of the sons when the joint family consists only of the father and his sons that the High Court construed r 193 in the manner stated above
We are unable to find any warrant for this view
The plain reading of r 193 is against it
The language is not susceptible of the meaning that there should be in existence some member of the joint family other than the sons against whom the father should be entitled to claim partition
The words of the sub rule being plain and unambiguous they have in our view to be construed in their natural and ordinary sense
No cogent reason has been suggested for departing from the rule of literal construction in this case
The consequence flowing from
this construction is quite intelligible and seems to us to be rational and logical
The special provision embodied in r 19 for paying compensation to joint Hindu families is in our view intended to treat a joint Hindu family consisting only of a father and his sons as one unit for the purpose of payment of compensation for the joint family property left in Pakistan
Such a joint family is not intended to be broken up by the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules
Sub rule 3 b of r 19 was in our opinion correctly construed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was wrong in disagreeing with it and in allowing the writ petition
The appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed with costs
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Rule 192 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules provides for the method of compensation to joint families which have migrated to India as a result of the partition of the country in 1947
Rule 193b provides that for the purpose of calculating the number of members of a joint family
Under r 192 a person who was a lineal descendant in the main line of another living member of the family entitled to claim partition shall be excluded
A joint family consisting of a father and his sons had migrated to India from Sind
The father made an application for the verification of claim in respect of the properties left by the family in Sind and the claim was verified
One of the sons claimed that the father and sons should be treated as tenants in common
The authorities under the Act held that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family and that in view of the r 19 3 b r 192 was not applicable
The High Court quashed the order holding that the living member of the family whose lineal descendants are to be excluded under r 193 b must be a person other than their father on the assumption that a person against whom partition can be claimed by the father must be some member of the family other than his lineal descendants
In appeal to this Court HELD  The special provision embodied in the rule is intended to treat a joint Hindu family consisting only of a father and his sons as one unit for the purpose of payment of compensation for the joint family property left in Pakistan
The rule is rational and logical and its_language is not susceptible of the meaning given to it by the High Court because under Hindu law a father and each of his sons are entitled to claim partition against each other
444 A B C F