Case: VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (D) THROUGH SMT. SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT

4. The factual matrix has to be examined in the context of the aforesaid provisions, and in the present appeal we are practically concerned with one document, which is the Partition Deed dated 31.1.1970, which has been duly registered, i.e., both the document and its registration are undisputedly before the cut-off date of 26.9.19705. The Partition deed has been executed between five parties – late Shri Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri and his then minor son and three minor daughters. It may, however, be noticed that two of the minor daughters attained majority before the commencement date of 2.10.1975, though they were not major on 26.9.1970. In terms of this document, the agricultural land of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is sought to be divided by mentioning all the parties as part of the HUF. The lands were stated to be used jointly and shares in the lands were given to both, the minor son and the daughters stating as under:have to take the education & to see that each of them take it freely & to provide for the expenses therefore and to see that each of them will meet the expenses out of their own property and that no dispute took place between them in future, therefore we are executing & keeping with us this deed of partition…6. After setting out the aforesaid recital, the property falling to each of the parties is mentioned and post that, before the signatures, it is further stated as under:In this way we have partitioned over estate, the property fallen to the share of party have taken its possession & became the full owner thereof. Now nobody is concerned with the property of others. Out of us for the education & marriage purpose of party No.2 to 5 and for the benefits of our family and for the successful future, we of our free will & consideration executed & kept this deed of partition, on this 31 st day of January 19707. We may also notice that the prelude to the aforesaid Partition Deed on account of an earlier Partition Deed executed between Vithaldas and his father Jagannath, on 20.1.1955, when a separate provision was also made through a Gift Deed by Jagannath, in favour of the wife of Vithaldas8. On the provisions of the said Act coming into force, the Surplus Lands Distribution Tribunal (for short SLDT) instituted proceedings in exercise of suo moto powers in respect of the return filed under Section 12 of the said Act by Vithaldas, which Section falls in Chapter IV , dealing with surplus land. In the course of the assessment proceedings regarding surplus land, the holdings of the entire family were taken into consideration, as in terms of Section 2 (11) of the said Act, the family would include an HUF, which is joint in estate, or possession, or residence. A family unit, under Section 11-A of the said Act, for definition, has referred to Section 4, defining land held by a family unit. In terms of order dated 19.11.1976, 60 acres and 27 gunthas of land of late Vithaldas was declared surplus. This order was assailed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Nagpur, which dismissed the appeal on 16.2.1977, resulting in proceedings being filed by Vithaldas, before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. In terms of order dated 2.3.1982, learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court remitted the matter back to the SLDT for fresh inquiry, on the ground of lack of adequate opportunity provided to Vithaldas and others to present their case9. On remand, a fresh order was passed by the SDO, Chikhali District, Buldana on 7.5.1984. Various aspects of holding of Vithaldas were examined. On the matter being revisited in these proceedings, land measuring 59 acres and 35 gunthas was deemed surplus, under Section 3(2) of the said Act, while excluding (a) Potkharab land of Vithaldas, to the extent of 12.16 acres; (b) Field Survey No.106, which was stated to be vesting with the wife of Vithaldas, having been gifted by her father-in- law Jagannath, and found that the same continued to be in possession of Jagannath, as also recorded in the Record of Rights and crop statements; (c) the land allotted to the two major daughters of Vithaldas, Shakuntala and Durgadevi10. The appeal proceedings were lodged by Vithaldas, his wife, the son and the third daughter, Beladevi, under Section 33 of the said Act. The other two minor daughters, who had attained majority before 2.10.1975, however, did not file the appeal as they were apparently satisfied with the view adopted by the SDO. The State also filed cross-objections challenging the exclusion of the land by the SDO qua (b) & (c) aforesaid. Since the two elder daughters were not aggrieved, they were neither the appellant, nor the respondent before the appeal proceedings. Nor did the State take care to implead them, despite having filed cross-objections qua their land. The appeal court, however, dismissed the appeal, and allowed the cross-objections vide order dated 3.12.1984. Since the land of the two elder daughters is the only concern, in this matter, the rationale for allowing the cross-objections has been set forth11. The principal plea, which found favour with the appellate authority, was that the Partition Deed dated 31.1.1970 was against the principles of Hindu law to the extent it gave a share to minor daughters in ancestral land. The land is stated to have also continued in the possession of Vithaldas. Even though the Partition Deed was pre the cut-off date of 26.9.1970, it was opined that the document could be looked into, in a case like the present one, where the property was apportioned to the two daughters who were not entitled to a share12. The aforesaid appellate order was challenged by Vithaldas and his wife in the writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, but that petition was dismissed vide oral judgment dictated over a period of 7.9.1987 to 15/16.9.1987. There were certain other aspects also urged in those proceedings, but they are not relevant for the present appeal. The High Court agreed with the finding that the daughters, not having a share in the property, a Partition Deed could not have conferred any interest on them, albeit it was before the cut-off date of 26.9.197013. An intra-court appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.11.2007. The Division Bench agreed with the findings that the partition effected vide Partition Deed dated 31.1.1970 was unnatural as it alienated properties to minor daughters, and that a female child could not get a share in the ancestral property, even though it was effected before the relevant date of 26.9.1970. Once again, as reflected in the records, the factum of cultivation of land by late Vithaldas was taken into account. The attainment of the age of majority by the elder two daughters, before the commencement date, 2.10.1975, was also ignored as irrelevant14. The appellants before the Division Bench also sought to raise the issue of the two elder daughters not being arrayed as parties in the cross- objections, even though their existing rights were being affected. Further, it was argued that none of the members of the HUF had assailed the Partition Deed on any account. These pleas also did not find favour on the ground that it was late Vithaldas who sought to lose the land and, in effect, it was for him to see how to confer the rights on his two elder daughters. The two elder daughters were held to form part of the family unit15. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed only by late Vithaldas, through his legal representatives. The two elder daughters are, thus, appellants as legal heirs of late Vithaldas, in the present proceedings. This is of significance as the contention of respondents is that the two elder daughters only stepped into the shoes of late Vithaldas, and that they cannot de novo start proceedings in their own rights. Leave was granted on 31.8.2009, and the interim order of status quo was directed to continue throughout. On 23.11.2016, during the course of hearing, an order was passed to obtain clarity, whether in pursuance of the Partition Deed, the transfer of rights was ever reported to the revenue authorities, in terms of Sections 148 & 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The action, if any, taken by the revenue authorities was also not apparently reflected in the records before the Court. Time was granted to place on record the requisite material qua the developments post the execution of the Partition Deed16. An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants, affirmed in March, 2017. On the appellants seeking the record from the Tehsil Office of the concerned district, they received a response, informing them that records from 1970 to 1975 are in a mutilated condition and that the mutation register for the period from 1964 to 1978 is not traceable. The crop statement was not available for the period 1970-1972 for Village Mangrul, while for Village Babulgaon the crop statement was not available for the period 1970-1973, for Survey No.14. It was thus notified that the crop statement for Survey No. 12 was not available for the period 1971-1972. The records made available, however, do show that from 1972- 1976, for Survey No. 12, and from 1973-1976, as gathered for Survey No. 14, the two daughters were shown as occupants, but through their guardian. It may be noted that somehow, on attaining the age of majority, apparently no endorsement was made qua the elder two daughters on that aspect. The Record of Rights also shows a similar position17. The picture which emerges from the documents produced is that in pursuance of the Partition Deed, which was obviously produced, both for the Record of Rights and the Crop Register, the names of the two elder daughters were entered though through their guardian, late Jagannath (the grandfather), as they were minors at the relevant time, while the corresponding endorsement on their attaining majority, before the commencement date 2.10.1975 was seemingly not made3. Late Shri Vithaldas was married and had three daughters and a son. He purported to enter into a partition which was registered on 31.01.1970. At the heart of the controversy in this case, is the allotment of shares to his two elder daughters, namely, Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Durga Devi. They are hereinafter referred to as the elder daughters. They are appellant 1 and 2 in this Court. Both of them were minors at the time of partition, and the question is whether 31 acres and 29 guntas of land allotted to them is to be excluded from the account of the family unit of Shri Vithaldas in determining the surplus land under the Act. Appellants 3 and 4 before this Court are the son and the third daughter of Late Shri Vithaldas4. Vithaldas filed a return under Section 12 of the Act on 02.10.1975. The authority passed an order declaring the total holdings of Vithaldas to be 118 acres and 17 guntas. 60 acres and 27 guntas were held to be surplus land and in excess of the ceiling area.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Vithaldas as also cross objections by the State. By order dated 02.03.1982, the writ petition filed by Shri Vithaldas came to be allowed on the score that principles of natural justice were violated. Thereafter, the Sub- Divisional Officer passed order dated 07.05.1984 whereunder he excluded the land given to his elder daughters, viz., Shakuntala and Durga Devi, under the partition deed. The land which is allotted to the elder daughters by the partition deed, was comprised in village Babulgaon. It comprised of a total 31 acres and 29 guntas. In Survey No. 12, the area is 17 acres 23 guntas and in Survey No. 14, the area is 14 acres and 6 guntas. He further found that the family unit was entitled to retain 60 acres and 15 guntas. 6 acres 15 guntas were found to be Pot kharab lands and adding the same to 54 acres, (the limit for the lands in question) the family unit was found entitled to hold 60 acres and 15 guntas. It was further found that 59 acres and 35 guntas were deemed to be surplus land under Section 3(2) of the Act. The land gifted to his wife Kamla Devi by Shri Jagannath Khatri (fathr of Vithaldas) was foundas having remained with him (the donor) and his name appeared in the record of rights. Thus, after excluding the 31 acres and 29 guntas of land, allotted to the elder daughters and the land which was gifted to the wife of Vithaldas but continued to be in possession of the donor, the total land was 119 acres and 50 guntas5. Ceiling Appeal No. 59 of 1984 came to be filed by Vithaldas, his wife and appellants 3 and 4 who are the son and youngest daughter of Vithaldas6. The State of Maharashtra, on the other hand, filed cross objections. The subject matter of the cross objection was as follows:Land gifted to Kamla Devi, wife of Vithaldas was wrongly excluded from the account of the familyThereafter, in regard to the partition deed which is the subject matter of the controversy before us, the following is stated in the cross-objections:The State objects to the partition deed at the record page No. 71 on following countsi.The unnatural partition of minor sister is resorted to when the natural guardians are alive and nothing untowards is proved against themii.That instead of the present appellants who is the father of the minors and major and de facto guardian; the present partition deed shows the guardianship with Jagnnath Khatri who is the grandfather of the minorsiii.The female child although gets the right to inherit the succession opens for her only on the death of the parents. Thus the partition deed is un-natural and against the sequence of Hindu Act of MaintenanceThese are the national Acts passed by Parliament. The unnaturally therefore needs to be done away withThe entire area with the appellants, wife and appellants are to be clubbed together as per the definition of the family unit7. In the reply filed by Shri Vithaldas and his wife to the cross-objections, in so far as it is related to the partition, it was stated as follows:The appellants further denied the contention raised by the Respondent State so far as the partition or allotment of share to the daughters is concerned. The nomenclature is immaterial one. The factum of possession and cultivation is material one. The learned Sub Divisional Officer has rightly excluded the Survey Nos. 13 and 14 of Babalgaon from counting in the holding and the said finding need not any interference from this Tribunal. The contention raised in this ground are denied8. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and allowed the cross objections. Resultantly, the land, which is the subject matter of partition deed and which stood allotted to the elder daughters and the property which was the subject matter of gift deed in favour of his wife came to be includedin total land holding of the family. The total extent of land was found to be 181 acres and 26 guntas. 111 acres and 39 guntas were declared surplus land9. Shri Vithaldas and his wife challenged the order before the High Court. Therein, appellants 1 and 2 before us were respondents 6 and 7. Appellants 3 and 4 before this Court were respondents 4 and 5. The learned Single Judge, by judgment, upheld the order of the Tribunal, in regard to viz., the property, which was subject matter of the gift in favour of the second appellant (wife) and the properties which were set apart for the two elder daughters. On the basis of an error determined by the learned Single Judge, the surplus land was held to be 103 acres and 36 guntas. It was Shri Vithaldas and his wife who preferred the Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1991. By judgment dated 27.11.2007, which is impugned in this appeal, the Division Bench upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge. His wife Smt. Kamladevi, though the 2 nd appellant before the High Court is made a proforma respondent.10. It is relevant to consider the findings of the Tribunal:In regard to the partition deed dated 31.01.1970, the contention of the State was that the daughters were not coparceners. They had no right to share in partition of ancestral property. Their right opened only upon the death of the father. The partition was attacked as unnatural. His wife, who was entitled to a share, was not given any share. The grandfather was shown as the guardian of the minor children though both the parents were living. The contention of the appellants was noted that what is material is the factual position as to cultivation. The Ceiling Authorities are not entitled to go behind the partition which took place before 26.09.1970. If the appellants-Vithaldas was not holding these lands on 26.09.1970 and thereafter, they could not be included11. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court:In the first place it is contended that Kiran the major unmarried daughter who is not included in the concept of Family unit under Section 4 of the Act was entitled to share on partition of the ancestral and joint family property and therefore, land to the extent of her share should be excluded in terms of Section 3(3)(i) read with section 4 of the Act. This point has merely to be stated to be rejected. Hindu Law is clear what only certain females such as wife, widow, widow mother, grand mother only are entitled to share on partition. Unmarried daughters major or minor, married or unmarried does not belongs to that category of females12. Reliance was also placed on judgment in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 1976 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Therein it was found that the High Court had ignored a partition with the declarants mother, by registered partition deed dated 09.01.197013. The appellants-elder daughters, who were allowed shares in partition, were found to be minors. Shankuntala, whose date of birth was 03.11.1955 was 14 years of age and Durga Devi, whose date of birth is 29.08.1957, was 12½ years old, when the partition was effected on 31.01.197014. Vithaldas continued to be the owner as title had not passed to the two daughters by a legally valid instrument15. As far as the actual possession was concerned, the Crop Statement in respect of Survey No. 14 for the year 1970-1971 and 1971-1972, showed the cultivation by Vithaldas. For the years 1972-1973 to 1974-1975, it was shown as jointly cultivated by Vithaldas and daughter Durga Devi16. In respect of Survey No.12, the property allotted to daughter Shakuntala, it was found that it was being cultivated by Vithaldas along with daughter Shakuntala17. That crop statements for other years were not filed it was noted. Ludicrous it was found that the minor daughters had the necessary wherewithal to cultivate the land independently. It was found that Vithaldas continued to hold the lands18. The writ petition was filed, viz., [Writ Petition No. 111 of 1985] by Vithaldas and his wife and wherein respondent 6 was Smt. Shakuntala and respondent 7 was Smt. Durga Devi, the elder daughters. Be it noted that the elder daughters did not challenge the order of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to uphold the findings of the Tribunal except as we have noticed19. Learned Single Judge referred to Bhagwandas Heda and others v. State of Maharashtra and others1983 Mh. L.J. 825 , and the decision in Writ Petition No. 2997 of 1976, and thereafter, proceeded to hold as follows:8. Moreover, it may be seen that although the respondents 6 and 7 were major on the commencement date i.e. 2-10-1975, they were still minor being aged 14 and 12 and half years, respectively, on 31.01.1970, when the partition was affected. In fact, their father, was, therefore, in possession of their alleged shares in field S.No.14 of village Babhulgaon and the crop statements for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 show his cultivation, while crop statements for the years 1972-73 to 1974-75 show the joint cultivation by him and his daughter Durgadevi. As regards field Survey No. 12, during the year 1974-75 the father Vithaldas along with his daughterShakuntala is shows as jointly cultivating the said filed. AS regards filed Survey No. 14 for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 Vitthaldas is shown to have cultivated the said field. It is on the basis of these facts that the learned M.R.T. held that the petitioner Vithaldas was holding field survey no. 12 admeasuring 17 acres 28 gunthas and survey no. 14 admeasuring 14 acres 6 gunthas of village Babulgaon, which is alleged to be allotted to the shares of the respondents 6 and 7, respectively, in the alleged partition deed dated 31-1-1970. In my view, the above finding is correct, or not any rate cannot be said to be perverse on the basis of the evidence on record in the instant case. It, therefore, deserves to be upheldThough the appeal was filed before the Division Bench, by Shri Vithaldas (appellant No.1) and his wife, during the pendency of the appeal Vithaldas passed away. Thereafter, the impugned judgment would show Respondents 4 to 7 as LRs of appellant No.120. Before the Division Bench, attention of the judgment in this regard in Uttar Chand (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Maharashtra and another AIR 1980 SC 806 , was invited. The said judgment will be referred to later on. The State pointed out that the partition involved in the said case decided by this Court was among persons who had an existing interest in the property. The fact that wife of Vithaldas who had a right in the partition was not given a share, was taken note of. The argument of the State was that the partition deed did not effect any transfer in favour of the elder daughters, and therefore, there was no question of recognizing any transfer effected prior to 26.09.197021. Thereafter, the findings are to be found in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12:9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. First, in 1970, there could be no question of daughters being entitled to a share of family properties in a partition during the life-time of their parents. Further, showing father of appellant No. 1, as their guardian in such a partition, would not result in severing them from the appellants family. Had appellant No.1 so wished, he could have gifted the properties to respondent Nos.6 and 7, but that too would not have mattered so long as respondent Nos.6 and 7 continued to be a part of his family. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttar Chand v. State of Maharashtra, reported at AIR 1980 SC 806 , on which the learned Advocate for the appellants placesreliance, does not help the appellants, since in that case, the Apex Court was considering actual transfers effected before the relevant date, whereas in the case at hand, there are no such actual transfers, but only attempted evasion, if we may so describe the partition dated 31-1-1970. Further, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the 7/12 extracts of the fields in question show that they were in joint cultivation of appellant No.1 and his daughters right up to the year 197510. It is not necessary to dissect the expression used by the Tribunal while discussing the effect of these transfers. As held in the judgment of this Court in Dadarao v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1969 Mh.L.J. 813, on which the learned Advocate for the appellants has placed reliance, such partition may be valid or invalid as between the parties. The question is whether it is to be recognized for the purpose of determining the ceiling area or not. Herein, since there was no transfer by the instrument dated 31-1- 1970 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7, there was no question of recognizing and transfer for the purpose of determining surplus land of appellant No.111. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the partition had not been questioned by the concerned members of the family and, therefore, there was no reason whatsoever for ignoring such partition. He submitted that the question whether respondentNos.6 and 7 were entitled to a share in such partition, could have been agitated only by respondent No.4 Anilkumar and appellant No.2 Kamladevi and it was not open for the State to question the rights created in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 by a document dated 31-1-197012. This fallacious contention was rightly repelled by the learned AGP by pointing out that the State was as much an interested party as the family members, because operation of the provisions of the Act entitled the State to secure the surplus land for the purpose of their distribution. If the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants were to be accepted, fictitious transfer, in which the transferor or the transferee had no dispute, would have taken out the entire surplus land out of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants has to be rejected22. As regards the flaw in entertaining the cross objection filed by the State, it came to be dealt with by the High Court on the footing that under Section 33 of the Act, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was to be followed. It was found that the observation of the Tribunal about State not being required to pay court fee, was not proper but non-payment of court fee wasnot a matter over which a litigant could take advantage. State could approach the Tribunal to make the deficiency good. Thereafter, the question was posed whether the Tribunal could have entertained the cross objection which affected the rights of the elder daughters without their presence in the party array before the Tribunal23. The High Court dealt with the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Kundomal Ganga Ram v. Topamal Chotamal AIR 1953 Allahabd 710 and Malireddi Venkatapathi and others v. Malireddi Veerayya and others AIR 1943 Madras 609 for the principle that a respondent maintaining cross objection could do so after a person affected by the cross objection was brought on the party array and proceeded to hold as follows in paragraphs 21 and 23:21. We have carefully considered these submissions. Apart from the question whether respondent Nos.6 and 7 had any right in the concerned fields, it seems to us that there was absolutely no possibility of their rights, if any, being prejudicially affected by inclusion of concerned lands in the holding of appellant No.1. It would be appellant No.1, who would stand to lose corresponding acreage after adjusting the claims of respondent Nos.6 and 7, if he was so keen to ensure that they got what he desired to give them. The order passed by the Tribunal was not one directed against respondent Nos.6 and 7, but was one which affected the rights of the appellant. There is no similarity with the facts of the unreported judgment in the case of Balkrishna Maharaj Mandir, referred to above, because in that case, Tarasingh was a tenant, who was also a party before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants as the proxy of respondent Nos.6 and 723. To sum up, we hold that validity of the partition dated 31-1-1970 has not been questioned by the Tribunal. All that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge did was to take into account the fact that lands continued to be with appellants as there was no severance of respondent Nos.6 and 7 from appellants family. As for court-fees on cross-objection, though we disapprove observations of the Tribunal, the defect is curable and cannot help appellants in pocketing a chunk of land, which should become available to the State for distribution. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were not necessary parties to the cross- objection, first, because of absence of subsisting interest in the properties, and secondly, because appellants could be trusted to take care of their daughters interests from their own property, rather than resorting to what may be proverbially described as Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Lastly, claim for exclusion of field survey no.106 of Sawangi, contending that the gift dated 20-1-1955 was not actually received, while at the same time taking a diametrically opposite stand about document dated 30-1-1970, amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breathAnd on this basis the appeal came to be dismissed.

Reasoning:
19. The legislation in question is a beneficial piece of legislation and, indeed, must be given the widest amplitude, the object being to distribute land among the landless. The preamble quoted aforesaid sets forth the object of the said Act. But, it is equally true that in giving wider amplitude to such legislation, it cannot be that the Court interprets the words of the statute beyond its plain reading reflecting the intent of the legislation. A preamble has its limitations insofar as being treated as an aid for the interpretation of a statute. It cannot restrict or enlarge the provisions of the Act.(Raymond Ltd. v. State of Chattisgarh (2007) 3 SCC 79 ; State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241 ) Thus, the provisions have to be read, to see whether there is any ambiguity, requiring any further aid for construction of those sections, or whether they are explicit and clear in their meaning.(The Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85 (HL).)20. On a reading of the provisions of Chapter III, including Sections 8, 10 & 11 of the said Act, there is no ambiguity as would require any aid to construct the meaning of those Sections21. The commencement date would be the date from which the provisions would come into force. However, the amendment of 1972 created a deemed fiction by inserting the provision for setting at naught transactions that may have occurred on a prior date, i.e., from 26.9.1970. The result is that the transactions or transfers in this window of about five years would also be hit by the provisions of the said Act insofar as the determination of surplus land is concerned. The object was to prevent circumvention by dubious and indirect methods.(Gurdit Singh v State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 260 )This is the view also adopted by this Court in Gurdit Singh v. State of Punjab, but then this Court had gone on to observe that that was no reason why a construction should be put on the Section which its language could hardly bear. The legislation in question in Gurdit Singh v. State of Punjab was a similar one, The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. It would be difficult to accept and countenance a situation where, irrespective of limitations imposed in considering the past time period, any transaction could be so assailed. In the wisdom of the legislature, the window of five years is provided as sufficient for scrutinizing transactions which could be called dubious and indirect methods to evade the result of the said ActThus, once again, it is clearly stated that the lands transferred between the period 26.9.1970 and the commencement date (2.10.1975) is what is to be ignored in calculating the ceiling area22. The effect of the aforesaid provision is that any land, even if it is obtained by partition or other transfer, after the date of 26.9.1970 would be included for the purposes of calculation of surplus land, as land of the person who so transferred the same23. The legislature has also taken another caution. The second Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 10 also provides that documents evidencing such transfer even before 26.9.1970 would not be exempted if they are not registered on or before that date, or even if they are registered after that date, they are not presented for registration on or before that date. The requirement is for the transfer document to be, both executed and presented for registration before the cut-off date. Thus, the possibility of evading the land ceiling limits by creating documents on a back date and subsequently producing them for registration is obviated24. Section 11 specifically talks about the partition deed in a similar manner and, thus, not only transfers whether by way of sale, gift, mortgage with possession, exchange, lease, assignment of land for maintenance, surrender of a tenancy or resumption of land by a landlord or any other disposition, are included, even the avenue by way of a partition deed has been shut out, unless it has been executed prior to the cut-off date. There is no doubt that in the present case, the partition deed was executed before the cut-off date of 26.9.1970 and registered even prior to that date25. On behalf of the appellants, a number of judgments have been referred to, on how a deemed fiction should be construed. Thus, a legal fiction is to be limited for the purpose for which it is created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field Bengal Immunity Co Ltd. v. State of Bihar: (1955) 2 SCR 603 . There are a number of judgments referred to in the context of taxing statutes, but then the rules of interpretation of taxing statutes, to be construed strictly, would be different and there is no purpose in referring to these judicial pronouncements. In the context of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, the issue of legal fiction was, once again, examined Mancheri Puthusseri Ahmed v. Kuthiravattam Estate Receiver (1996) 6 SCC 185 . The same proposition was, once again, reiterated while observing that a legal fiction is not to be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created, and that it cannot be extended by importing another fiction. In the context of Section 4A of that Act, it was held to be circumscribed by express words – a mortgagee in possession was stated to be one who, for a continuous period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the commencement of that Section held that capacity. The words immediately preceding the commencement were required to be given their ordinary and full meaning as reflecting the legislative intent and thus, only such type of cases where a mortgagee was in possession, immediately preceding the commencement of the Section, was extendable for a period of 50 years in the past alone. It was further observed as under:….However beneficial may be the scope and ambit of the legal fiction created by the legislature while enacting Section 4-A such fiction can arise only when the express language of the section laying down the conditions precedent for raising of such a fiction is complied with by the mortgagee-in-possession concerned seeking the benefit of such a deeming fiction. Such a fiction cannot be extended by the court on analogy or by addition or deleting words not contemplated by the legislature26. This judgment has found support in a subsequent judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Johri v. State of M.P . (2002) 3 SCC 732 Thus, the aforesaid being the manner of interpreting a provision for deeming fiction, the relevant dates provided, of 26.9.1970 and 2.10.1975, giving a window of five years for the State to take action and prevent any dubious transaction during this period of time, cannot be expanded to an unlimited prior period of time27. This Court, in Uttar Chand v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 292  while dealing with the very statute has opined that the cut-off date would be sacrosanct. The factual contours dealt with partition before the cut-off date, as also sale of land. Once the cut-off date is provided, it was observed that they fell completely outside the ambit of the provisions of the Act and, thus, the High Court would not be justified in presuming that the transfers made were either collusive or fraudulent28. The order passed by the competent authority, being the SDO, insofar as the two elder daughters are concerned, held in their favour as far as the lands vested in them, in pursuance of the Partition Deed. There was, thus, no occasion for them to file an appeal, nor did they so file an appeal. Other members of the family, who filed the appeal, did not implead them as parties. Once again, naturally so, as they would not be the interested parties, or even pro forma parties in that behalf. However, once the State decided to file cross-objections and, in that, impugned even that portion of the order of the SDO which held in favour of the two elder daughters, there is no hesitation in stating that they were necessary parties to those proceedings. It is no answer to say that since the effect of the land ceiling would be to restrict the area of their father, late Vithaldas, it is for Vithaldas to see how he can benefit his daughters. This fundamental defect cannot be cured in the subsequent proceedings, as the right of appeal is a statutory right and an important one. This aforesaid view is reinforced by a catena of judicial pronouncements. It has been held that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not contemplate filing of cross-objections against a party who is not a party to the appealRajendra Nath Chatterjee v. Moheshata Debi AIR 1926 Cal 533 . In case such objections have to be filed two distinct operations are necessary. He must implead the persons as parties qua whom he intends to file cross-objections then he must file the memorandum of cross-objections Venkatapathi v. Veerayya AIR (30) 1943 Madras 609 . The position would be no different qua a judicial or quasi-judicial authority as a party to be effected must get a right of hearing Udit Narayan Singh Malpharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786 (WS) . Thus, unqualified imprimatur can be lent to this view29. Thus, for the aforesaid reason also the cross-objection could not have disturbed the status of the two elder daughters30. It has already been observed that non-impleadment of the two elder daughters would be fatal to the appellate proceedings. But, they are fatal for more than that reason. In fact, the view taken by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench would equally fall foul of the legal treatise, enunciating the rights of an unmarried daughter. The view taken is that since these lands were given to minor unmarried daughters, they having no share in the HUF property, such grant is contrary to law at that point of time31. It may be noticed, of course, that the lis has been pending, and the current scenario is one where even daughters have been given rights in the ancestral/HUF property, in terms of the amendment made to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The State of Maharashtra, where the land is located was a step ahead inasmuch as vide Maharashtra Act 39 of 1994, which was brought into force on 22.6.1994, such rights were conferred on women by making them also a coparcener by birth. However, even on the date when the Partition Deed was executed, the legal position was not as has been enunciated36. The legal view, thus, is verya. A provision for marriage of unmarried daughters can be made out of ancestral propertyb. Such provision can be made before, at the time, or even after the marriagec. The provision is being made out of pious obligation, though the right of women got diluted over a period of time. However, with the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, in 2005, a specific right is now conferred on women to get a share on partition of ancestral property, including the right to claim partition. As mentioned above this change was brought about in Maharashtra in 1994, itself37. If the facts of the present case are averted to, the aforesaid is exactly what has been done under the Partition Deed. A provision was made for the marriage of the daughters. In fact, the provision is for education and marriage purposes. In the context of where the society is today, such an endeavour should be commended as salutary, rather than be frowned upon. It was sustainable in law then, and it is more than just merely sustainable in law now. Thus, there is no doubt that there was nothing prohibiting such a provision from being made. If the law permits so, it can hardly be called fraudulent. Thus, the very premise of allowing the cross-objection has no sustenance in law38. It may also be noticed the fact that the two elder daughters, whose rights have been debated actually, even attained majority before the commencement date, i.e., they were major unmarried daughters on the date when the amendments came into force. They were, thus, not included even in the family unit in terms of the definition contained under Section 4,The question of including the daughters would only arise if the document of partition deed was found to be fraudulent. Thus, for this reason also, the property cannot be included and clubbed with the land of late Vithaldas39. As observed above, the form of the document is not important in this behalf. Such provision can be made in a partition deed. It may be in the nature of a gift. So what? None of the members of the family have ever sought to assail or challenge the same. It is with the consensus of the family, apart from the legality of the sameIn a nutshell, the view is that too much importance should not be attached to the nomenclature of a document and one can look behind the façade of the document to decipher the true nature of the transaction40. The aforesaid enunciation of the law reflects the correct legal position. In the given facts of the case it is not in dispute that the Deed was a registered document. Thus, even if one construes it as a partition- cum-gift deed, it would make no difference as the requirements of a gift deed, under Sections 122 & 123 of the TP Act stand satisfied41. Legal position in the context of the facts of the present case, thus, show that even if the document is effectively a gift deed, and Hindu Law permits the making of a provision for the daughter for her marriage, the execution of a partition deed, which has the effect of such a gift would not nullify the effect of the deed. This is so as a provision made for the daughter out of the ancestral property would be in compliance of the pious obligation42. In the end, it may be noted that the only aspect on which the debate occurred was the share of the two elder daughters, and the right to retain the land as their separate land, without it being adjusted with the lands of late Vithaldas. The findings above, thus, lead to the conclusion that the view taken by the SDO vide order dated 7.5.1984, regarding the land of the two elder daughters, is the correct view, and the subsequent view by the appellate authority faulted on more than one reason, as mentioned aforesaid. The further imprimatur of that view by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, thus, also cannot be sustained