Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 129 of 1968	 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18 8 66 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1299/67 and Civil Appeal No. 2007 of 1969 From the Judgment and Order dated the 18th	 20th June 1968 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1676 of 1964. and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3175/75 From the Judgment and Order dated the 31 10 74 of the Bombay	 High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 2610 of 1970. V.M. Tarkunde	 V.N. Ganpule and P.C. Kapoor for the appellant in C.A. 129 of 1968. S.N. Anand for Respondent No. 1 in CA 129/68 V.N. Ganpule for the Petitioner in SLP S.B. Wad and R.N. Nath for the Appellants in CA 2007 of 1969. R.B. Datar and S.C. Agarwal for Respondent No. 1 in CA 2007/ 69 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER	 J. These two appeals raise a short issue of interpretation of the proviso to section 32F (1) (a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act	 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants in both the cases are the aggrieved landlords	 the tenants ' right of purchase under the Act having been upheld by the High Court. The correctness of this view is canvassed 	before us by counsel. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions may be are different but the issue is identical and	 stated briefly. The parties so a single judgment will dispose of both the appeals. 680 In Civil Appeal No. 2007 of 1969 the widow of a deceased landowner	 one Dattatraya	 is the appellant. The deceased owned several houses	 had a money lending business and considerable agricultural lands. He left behind him on his death in 1952 a widow (the second appellant) and two sons	 one of whom is the first appellant. Admittedly the Act	 an agrarian reform measure	 was extensively amended by Bombay Act XIII of 1956 conferring great rights on tenants and inflicting serious mayhem on landlordism. The case of the appellants is that there was a partition among the mother and the two sons of the agricultural estate whereunder the second appellant (the widow) was allotted around 80 acres of land out of which about 15 acres were held by the first respondent as a tenant	 On the Tillers	 Day tenants	 bloomed into owners by the conferment of the right of pur chase. On the basis that the first respondent had become the owner	 a proceeding for the determination of the pur chase price of these lands was initiated? by the Tribunal	 as provided under section 32G of the Act. Although notice was not given to the second appellant	 the first appellant appeared before the Tribunal	 urged the case that the land held by the first respondent. was set apart in a family partition to his mother	 the second appellant	 and. that since she was a widow she came squarely within the protec tive provision of the proviso to cl. (a) of section 32F(1 ) of the Act. The first respondent	 however	 contested the partition and further pressed the plea that even if the agricultural ' lands had been divided since the house and the money lending business and other assets admittedly remained ' joint	 the appellant was ineligible to claim the benefit of the proviso aforesaid. We need not trace the history of the litigation from deck to deck but may conclude the story for the present purpose by stating that the High Court took the view that the second appellant (widow did not qualify under the said proviso: "The proviso is not satisfied ' unless the share of a disabled person is separated by metes and bounds in all of the joint family property and ' unless the agricul tural land allotted to him corresponds to his share in the entire property and is not in excess thereof. " This was the construction put by the Court on the proviso and chal lenged before us by Shri Wad in C.A. 2007 of 1969 and by Shri Tarkunde in C.A. 129 of 1968. In Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1968 the legal scenario is similar. The family owned lands and other assets and there was a partition on November 7	 1956 confined to agricultural land only	 but the house property remained undivided. The partition deed shows that the land under the tenancy of the first respondent has been set apart to the share of a minor appellant. The Tillers ' Day arrived '. The tenant claimed to have become owner. Proceedings under section 32G of the Act for determination of ' the compensation were commenced and the mantle of protection of the proviso to section 32F (I) (a) was pleaded in vain. The High Court having negatived the land lord 's contention summarily	 this Court has been approached	 the point urged being the same as in the previous appeal. In both the appeals we my proceed	 for testing the legal pro. position	 on assumed facts. We may take it that there was a parti 681 tion in both cases during the period referred to in the proviso	 i.e.	 before March 31	 1958. We may further take it that the widow and the minor come within the category specified in section 32F (1) (a). We have also to proceed on the basis that the joint family in each case has other assets which remain joint and undivided. Before proceeding further with the discussion it may be proper to read the relevant provision for a break up of the! statutory limbs: "32F. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proceeding sections (a) where the landlord is a minor	 or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land under section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 and for enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase	 the landlord shall send an intima tion to the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority	 before the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31: Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint family	 the provisions of this sub section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in this sub section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satis fied that the share of such person in the land is separated	 having regard to the area	 assessment	 classification and value of the land	 in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family proper ty	 and not in a larger proportion. X X X X" Where the landlord is a minor or a widow	 as in this case	 the tenants ' fight to purchase such land under section 32 is postponed till their disability disappears and one year lapses thereafter. But this embargo. on the exercise of the fight of purchase by the tenant does not operate if the property belongs to a joint family and there is a partition therein and the land in question is allotted to the person under disability. What the section insists upon is that (a) share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds; and (b) the Mamlatdar is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. We are dealing with an agrarian reform law whose avowed object is to confer full proprietorship on tilling tenants and it is a fact of common knowledge that landlords resort to cute agrarian legal engineering to circumvent the provisions. The legislature	 with local knowledge of famil iar manipulations and manouvres calculated to 682 defeat land reforms	 makes widely worded provisions the 'why ' of it may not be easily discernible to the Court. We have to give full force and effect without whittling down or supplying words. Nor can the Court presume the mischief and remedy the evil by interpretative truncation. A blend of the grammatical and the teleological modes of construction is the best and that is what has been done by the High Court. We are free to agree that the involved drafting of the section has had its share in the marginal obscurity of meaning. But our legislative process	 not an unmixed bless ing	 works under such instant stress and ad hoc haphazard ness that the whole piece when produced makes experienced draftsmen blush. Reform of the inherited lawmaking method ology may save court time and reduce litigation. Be that as it may	 we have to wrestle with the language of the Proviso to decode its true sense. The broad idea is to vest full ownership in the tenan try. A compassionate exception is made in favour of handi capped landlords who cannot prove their need to recover their land on approved grounds. These disabled categories include infants and widows. But if the lands belong to joint families of which they are members	 the raison d 'etre for such protection does not exist because the manager of this joint family takes care of its collective inter ests. Where	 however	 there has been a partition of the joint family	 then the widow or minor has to stand on her or his own disabled legs and so the Proviso to section 32F (1) (a) was brought in by amendment to give them protection for the period of the disability and a little longer. But every ruse to save the lands is used by landlords and so	 once it was in the air that minors and widows may be exempted	 a spate of partitions perhaps ensued. Joint living is the dear	 traditional Hindu way of life but jettisoning jointness to salvage 	land is dearer still. Blood is thicker than water	 it has been said; but in this mundane world	 property is thicker than blood: So partition deeds	 conven iently confined to land	 became a popular art of extrica tion. And the Legislature	 anxious to inhibit such abuse	 while willing to exempt genuine	 total separations	 condi tioned the Proviso under consideration by insisting that the separation should be from the whole joint family assets and not a tell tale transaction where agricultural lands .alone are divided and secondly	 even where there is a total parti tion	 only a fair proportion of the lands is allotted to the disabled person. In this light	 we may read the Proviso. To steer clear of possible confusion we may agree that partial partition may be legally permissible and the Hindu law does not require investigation into the motives or motivelessness behind the partition. We also accept that division in status is good enough to end commensality or jointness under the personal law. But we are now in the jurisdiction of land reform legislation and the Legislature	 with a view to fulfil its objectives	 may prescribe special require ments. The Court has to give effect to them	 in the spirit of agrarian reform and not read down the wide words on judicial suppositions. 683 Here the Proviso can rescue the widow or the minor only if the prerequisites are fairly and fully fulfilled. Sec tion 32 states that the tenants shall be deemed to have purchased the tenanted land on the Tillers ' Day. The Tribu nal suo motu takes action to determine the purchase price. But all this is kept in abeyance if the landlord belongs to the disabled category and qualifies under section 32F (1). The crucial issue is whether the Proviso applies even if the separation of the widow or minor is restricted to agricul tural lands. Shri Wad and	 Shri Tarkunde vehemently urge that it is none of the concern of the agrarian law what happens to the other assets of the joint family	 so long as the lands are divided in fair proportion. Shri Datar presses what the High Court has laconically reasoned	 viz.	 that it is possible to defeat the scheme by division of the lands alone. Fox one thing	 in most such partial parti tions	 inspired by the desire to avoid the land reforms in the offing	 the Legislature can	 as a policy decision	 insist on a whole partition	 to reduce the evasion. More over	 there will be a sudden fancy for allotting all the good lands to the share of widows and minors	 depriving the tenants of their legitimate expectations. And	 if lands and other assets are to be divided	 then less lands will go to the disabled persons or even none. For instance the house may be allotted to the widow and the lands taken over by adult males. The ornaments may all go to the woman	 the agriculture to the men. We need not speculate	 but may content ourselves with stating that the Legislature has	 for some reasons	 decided to lay down conditions and the words of the text must be assigned full effect. The Proviso clearly states that the disabled person 's share 'in the joint family ' must have been 'separated by metes and bounds '. Separation from the joint family means separation from all the joint family assets. Otherwise the sharer remains partly joint and	 to that extent	 is not separated from the joint family. Notional division or divi sion in status also may not be enough because the Act in sists on separation 'by metes and bounds '. Ordinarily 'metes and bounds ' are appropriate to real property	 mean ing	 as the phrase does	 'the boundary lines of land	 with their terminal points and angles '. In the context	 the thrust of the expression is that the division must be more than notional but actual	 concrete	 clearly demarcated. The ineptness and involved structure and some ambiguity notwith standing	 the sense of the sentence is clear. The share of a person in the joint family	 plainly understood	 means his share in all the joint family properties and not merely in the real estate part. What is more	 the section uses the expressions 'the share of such person in the joint family '	 'the share of such person in the land '	 'the share of that person in the entire joint family property '. Thus it is reasonable to hold that when the expression used is 'the share of such person in the point family. '	 it is not ' confined to the share in the land only. It really means his share 'in the entire joint family property '. Moreover	 the statutory exercise expected of the Mamlatdar by the Proviso involves an enquiry into the share of the disabled person in the land	 and its value	 the share of that person in the entire joint family property	 the proportion that the allot ment of the land bears to his share in the entire joint 684 family property with a view to see that there is no unfair manouvre to defeat the scheme of the Act. The necessary postulate is that there is a division in the entire joint family property. Therefore	 the imperative condition for the operation of the Proviso is that there should be a total separation and so far as a disabled member is concerned it must cover all the joint family properties. We are therefore in agreement with the interpretation adopted by the High Court. In the cases under appeal there is no division of all the joint family properties. Only the landed properties have been separated. The appeals there fore fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances	 we direct parties to bear their costs. S.R. Appeals dis missed.

Under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948	 the. tiller of the land had the right to purchase the land tenanted to him. Where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disa bility	 the right to purchase such land is postponed till their disability disappears and one year lapses thereafter. But this embargo on the exercise ' of the right of purchase by the tenant does not operate as per proviso to section 32F(1)(a)	 if the property belongs to a joint family and there is a partition therein and the land is allotted to the person under disability. In both the appeals	 the family owned lands and other assets and there was a partition confined to agricultural land only. In one case the share fell to a widow while in the other it fell to a minor	 admittedly a disabled ' person within ' the meaning of s 32F(1). Before the TribUnal and the High Court	 the landlord claimed	 therefore	 protection under the proviso to clause (a) of section 32F(1) of the Act while the respondent contended that even if the agricultural land had been divided and other assets admittedly remained joint	 the appellant was ineligible to claim the benefit of the proviso. The High Court decided against the landlord and held: "The proviso is not satisfied unless the share of a disabled person is separated by metes and bounds in all the joint family property and unless the agricultural land allotted to him corresponds to his share in the entire property and is not in excess thereof '. Dismissing the appeal to this Court	 HELD: (1) The broad idea is to vest full ownership in the tenantry. A compassionate exception is made in favour of a handicapped landlords who ' cannot prove their need to recover their land on approved grounds. The Legislature conditioned the proviso by insisting that the separation should be from the whole joint family assets and not a tell tale transaction where agricultural lands alone are divided and secondly even where there iS a total partition only a fair proportion of the lands is allotted to the disabled person. [682 C D F] What section 32F(1) insists upon is that (a) share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds; (b). the Mamlatdar is satisfied that the share of the disabled person in the land is separated in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. [681 G] (3) The imperative condition for the operation of the proviso is that there should be a total separation and so far as a disabled member is concerned	 it must cover all the joint family properties. The usage of the expressions "the share of such person in the joint .family"	 "the share of. such person		 in the land"	 "the share of that person in the	 entire joint family property in the section the clear statement in the proviso that the disabled person s share in the joint family must have been separated by metes and bounds and the statutory exercise expected of the Mam latdar by the proviso involving an enquiry into the share of the disabled person in the land and its value	 the share of that person in the entire joint family properties	 the proportion that the allot 679 ment of the land bears to his share in the entire joint family property with a view to see that there is no unfair manouvre to defeat the scheme of the Act lead to the neces sary postulate that it is not confined to the share of the land only but really means his share in the entire joint family property. [683 E H	 684 A] (4) In the instant case there is no division of all the joint family property. Only the landed properties have been separated. [684 B] Observation: The reform of the inherited law making methodology may save court time and reduce litigation. Our legislative process	 not an unmixed blessing	 works under such instant stress and ad hoc hephazardness that the whole piece of legislation when produced makes experienced draftsmen blush	 as in the instant case	 the involved drafting of section 32F has had its share in the marginal obscurity of meaning. [682 B C]