Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 2378 of 1977. 804 From the Judgment dated 3.2.1977 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 551 of 1972. B. Datta	 L.B. Kolekar	 Ms. Chetna Anand and P.H. Parekh (NP) for the Appellant. S.K. Kholakia	 R.B. Haribhakti and P.C. Kapoor (NP) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY	 J. The facts relevant to the controversy are as under: The appellant had taken on lease	 about 55 years ago	 an extent of 2 acres	 6 gunthas of agricultural lands situated in Akote village from Vishwas Rao. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 for short `the Act ' applies to the lease. By operation of section 32(1) the appellant became a deemed purchaser from tillers ' day i.e.	 April 1	 1957. Section 32 G provides the procedure to determine purchase price. Since the landlord was insane	 the right to purchase was statutorily deferred under section 32 F till date of its cessation or one year after death. Under section 88(1)(b) of the Act certain areas abutting Baroda Municipality were notified as being reserved for non agricultural or industrial purpose with effect from May 2	 1958. By another notification published in the Gujarat State Gazette dated July 2	 1964	 certain lands including those situated in Akote and of the appellant 's lease hold lands were reserved for industrial purpose. Consequently Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act do not apply to the exempted area. While the landlord was continuing under disability	 his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the respondent under registered sale deed dated August 19	 1964. By another notification under Section 88(1)(b) published in the Gazette dated October 29	 1964	 the Government restricted the operation of the exemption to the area originally notified on May 	 1958 i.e.	 Ss. 1 to 87 do not apply to the lands in question. This notification was rescinded by further notification published in the Gazette dated August 23	 1976. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Gujarat) Amendment Act 36 of 1965	 section 18(1) and 18(2) thereof introduced two provisos to section 88(1)(b) of the Act which was published in the Gazette on December 29	 1965 which are relevant for purpose of the case. Section 88(1)(b) with amendments reads thus: "(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub section (2) 805 nothing in the following provisions of this Act shall apply (a) to lands belonging to	 or held on lease form the Government; (aa) to lands held or leased by a local authority; (b) to any area which the State Government may	 from time to time	 by notification in th official Gazette	 specify as being reserved for non agricultural or industrial development; Provided that if after a notification in respect of any area specified in the notification is issued under this clause	 whether before or after the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act	 1965	 the limits of the area so specified are enlarged on account of the addition of any other area thereto	 then merely by reason of such addition	 the reservation as made by the notification so issued shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to the area so added	 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment	 or order of any court	 Tribunal or any other authority. Provided further that if any land in the area so added has been transferred or acquired after the issue of notification referred to in the first proviso but before the 9th day of October	 1964	 such transfer or acquisition of land shall have effect as if it were made in an area to which this clause applies". Vishwash Rao died in September 1965. The appellant became entitled to purchase the land on and from August 19	 1966. He filed an application before Mamlatdar to fix the price. He fixed on enquiry at Rs.4	925.65 paise which was paid by the appellant. In the enquiry	 the respondent contended that he purchased the property from Vasantrao	 son of the landlord. By operation of second proviso to section 88(1)(b) the lands stood exempted from operation of Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act. So the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide the 806 price of the land. The appellant raised the contention that Vasantrao has no right to sell during the life time of the father	 the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. The sale is invalid and does not bind him. He acquired statutory right of deemed purchaser and its exemption under section 88(1)(b) does not divest his statutory right. The Mamlatdar accepted the appellant 's contention and allowed the petition. On appeal to the Collector and revision to the Revenue Tribunal the decision was reversed. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated February 3	 1977 dismissed the writ petition. The appellant had leave of this Court by article 136. Thus this appeal. From these admitted facts the question emerges whether the operation of the second proviso to section 88(1)(b) has retrospective effect depriving the appellant of the statutory right of `deemed purchaser '. section 88 of the Act empowers the government to exempt certain other lands from the purview of Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act. The State Government exercised their power from time to time under section 88(1)(b) and issued notification and published in the official Gazette specifying certain areas as being reserved for non agricultural or industrial development i.e.	 urban development. Consequently the first proviso gets attracted which say that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court	 tribunal or any other authority under the Act to the contrary	 once the notification was issued either before or after commencement of the Amendment Act reserving the area so added for non agricultural or industrial development i.e. expansion for urbanisation	 to the extent of the area covered under the first proviso	 the provisions of Ss. 1 to 87 were not applied and shall be deemed never to have been applied. The second proviso which is material for the purpose of the case further postulates that: "Provided further that if any land in the are so added has been transferred or acquired after the issue of the notification referred to in the first proviso but before the 29th day of October	 1964	 such transfer or acquisition of the land shall have effect as if it was made to an area to which this clause applies". (emphasis supplied) What is the effect of the second proviso to the facts is the question? Mr. Dutta	 the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first proviso has the effect of excluding Ss. 1 to 87 of the Act only to those areas which were initially reserved for non agricultural or industrial development and has no application to the land added to it by a 807 subsequent notification though it would become part thereof. Any alienation in violation of the Act would not attract the operation of the second proviso. The Act is an agrarian reform which created a vested right in the tenant as a deemed purchaser with effect from Tillers ' day which cannot be divested retrospectively. The proviso should be construed to inhere in the tenant the vested rights created under the Act. The Withdrawal of the notification dated Oct. 29	 1964 renders the right of the appellant uneffected. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the filed	 which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment	 and its effect is to confine to that case. Where the language of the main enactment is explicit and unambiguous	 the proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment	 so as to exclude from it	 by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. The scope of the proviso	 therefore	 it to carve out an exception to the main enactment and it excludes something which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to operate in the same field and it the language of the main enactment is clear	 the proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at naught the real object of the main enactment	 unless the words of the proviso are such that it is its necessary effect. The effect of the notification issued under section 88(1)(b) was the subject of consideration in several decisions of this Court. In Sukharam @ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas & Anr. vs Manikchand Motichand Shah and Anr.	 [196] SCR 59 Sinha	 CJ.	 held that the provisions of section 88 are entirely prospective and apply to such lands as are described in clauses (a) to (d) of section 88(1) from which the Act came into operation	 namely	 December 28	 1948 and are not a confiscatory in nature so as to take away from the tenant the status of a protected tenant already accrued to him. In Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari vs Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli	 ; a Constitution Bench speaking through Sinha	 CJ. held that Clauses (a) to (c) of section 88(1) applies to things as they were on the date of the commencement of the Act of 1948 whereas clause (d) authorised the State Govt. to specify certain areas as being reserved for urban non agricultural or industrial development	 by notification in the official Gazette	 from 808 time to time. It was specifically provided in clauses (a) to (c) that the Act	 from its inception	 did not certain areas then identified	 whereas clause (d) has reference to the future. The State Govt	 could take out of the operation of the Act such areas as in its opinion should be reserved for urban non agricultural or industrial development. Clause (d) would come into operation only upon such a notification being issued by the State Govt. In Sukhram 's case	 this Court never intended to lay down that the provisions of clause (d) are only prospective and have no retrospective operation. Unlike clauses (a) to (c) which are clearly prospective	 clause (d) has retrospective operation in the sense that it would apply to land which would be covered by the notification to be issued by the government from time to time so as to take that land out of the operation of the Act of 1948	 granting the protection. (emphasis supplied) So far as clauses (a) to (c) are concerned	 the Act of 1948 would not apply at all to lands covered by them	 but that would not take away the rights covered by the Act of 1939 which was repealed by the Act of 1948. Therefore	 it was held that by operation of section 89(2) the rights acquired under the Act of 1939 would be available to the tenant. When a doubt was expressed of the correctness of the above views on reference	 another Constitution Bench in Sidram Narsappa Kamble vs Sholapur Borough Municipality & Anr.	 ; 	 held at p. 65 thus: "New there is no doubt that section 88 when it lays down inter alia that nothing in the foregoing provisions of the 1948 Act shall apply to lands held on lease from a local authority	 it is an express provision which takes out such leases from the purview of sections 1 to 87 of the 1948 Act. One of the provisions therefore which must be treated as non existent where lands given on lease by a local authority is in section 31. .but the effect of the express provision contained in section 88(1)(a) clearly is that section 31 must be treated as non existent so far as lands held on lease from a local authority are concerned and in effect therefore section 88(1)(a) must be held to say that there will be no protection under the 1948 Act for protected tenants under the 1939 Act so far as lands held on lease from a local authority are concerned . . 809 the appellant cannot claim the benefit of section 31; nor can it be said that his interest as protected tenant is saved by section 89(2)(b). This in our opinion is a plain effect of the provisions contained in section 31	 section 88 and section 89(2)(b) of the 1948 Act". In Parvati & Ors. vs Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad	 ; the facts were that the Government issued a notification on May 21	 1958 under section 88(1)(b) of the 1948 Act reserving the land within the municipal limits of the city of Baroda for non agricultural and industrial development. The appellant 's husband had taken possession of certain lands situated in the city of Baroda on lease from the respondent trustee. The respondent laid the suit against the appellant for recovery of arrears of rent. The defence was that the suit was not maintainable. Dealing with the effect of the notification issued under section 88(1)(b)	 this Court held that the notification had retrospective operation and subject to certain exceptions provided in sub section (2) of section 88 all rights	 title	 obligations etc. Accrued or acquired under the said Act ceased to exist. Therefore	 section 89(2)(b) was inapplicable to protect such right	 title or interest	 acquired under the Act except as provided in s 89A owing to express provision made in section 88 of the Act. Accordingly it was held that the Civil Court was legally competent to determine the reasonable rent payable by the tenant. In Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbai & Anr.	 ; this court was to consider a case that the notification under section 88(1)(b) was issued on May 30	 1959 by which date the tenant acquired the statutory right of a deemed purchaser with effect from April 1	 1957. This Court held that the tenant cannot be divested of his deemed purchase by a subsequent notification issued thereunder. It would be seen that the effect of the second proviso was not considered therein. The above interpretation would equally apply to the interpretation of the notification issued under the proviso to section 88(1)(b) adding to the area reserved for non agricultural or industrial development. Its effect is that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court or Tribunal or any other authority	 the provisions of Ss. 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to such added area as well. If any land in the newly added area has been transferred or acquired between the date of the notification issued under first proviso and October 9	 1964	 such transfer or acquisition of land shall have the effect as if it was made in an area to which the main part of the proviso and section 88(1)(b) would apply. The necessary consequence would be that the provisions of sections 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall be 810 deemed never to have applied to such added area. It is implicit that such transfer or acquisition made	 to bring within the net of second proviso	 must be valid and bona fide one and not colourable	 fraudulent	 fictitious or nominal. The Legislature appears to relieve hardship to the bona fide purchasers. The title acquired by such transfer is not effected by the provisions of the Act. The Legislature advisedly used the words `acquired or transferred '. The respondent 's own case is that Vishwesh Rao	 Karta of the Hindu Joint Family was under disability due to lunacy. The tenant acquired statutory right as deemed purchaser under section 32. The Act	 by necessary implication	 divests the landlord of his right to alienate the land held by the tenant. The statutory right topurchase the land under section 32 as deemed purchaser was postponed by operation of section 32 F of the Act till the cessation of the disability or one year after the death of the landlord. In such situation can the son during the life time of the father	 has right to sell the same property to the respondents	 and whether such a sale made on August 19	 1964 to the respondents was valid and binds the appellant. In Raghavachariar 's Hindu Law Principles and Precedents	 Eighth Ed.	 1987 in section 275 at p. 39 stated thus: "So long as the joint family remains undivided	 the senior member of the family is entitled to manage the family properties	 and the father	 and in his absence	 the next senior most male member of the family	 as its manager provided he is not incapacitated from acting as such by illness or other sufficient cause. The father 's right to be the manager of the family is a survival of the patria potastas and he is in all cases	 naturally	 and in the case of minor sons necessarily the manager of the joint family property. In the absence of the father	 or if he resigns	 the management of the family property devolves upon the eldest male member of the family provided he is not wanting in the necessary capacity to manage it". Regarding the management of the Joint Family Property or business or other interests in a Hindu Joint Family	 the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family is a prima inter pares. The managership of the Joint Family Property goes to a person by birth and is regulated by seniority and the Karta or the Manager occupies a position superior to that of the other members. A junior member cannot	 therefore	 deal with the joint family property as Manager so long as the Karta is available except where the Karta relinquishes his right expressly or by necessary impli 811 cation or in the absence of the Manager in exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances such as distress or calamity effecting the whole family and for supporting the family or in the absence of the father whose whereabouts were not known or who was away in remote place due to compelling circumstances and that is return within the reasonable time was unlikely or not anticipated. No such circumstances are available here to attract the facts of the case. Vasantrao	 the vendor	 son of the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family per se has no right to sell the property in question as Manager so long as the father was alive. When father was under disability due to lunancy	 an order from the Court under Indian Lunancy Act IV of 1912 was to be obtained to manager the joint family property. No proceedings were taken under sections 39	 43 and 45 of the Indian Lunacy Act to have the inquisition made by a competent District Court to declare him as insane and to have him appointed as Manager of the Joint Family. In P.K. Gobindan Nair & Ors. vs P. Narayanan Nair & Ors.	 [1912] 23 M.L.J. 706=17 Indian Cases 473 a division Bench of the Madras High Court held that a guardian cannot be appointed as Manager under the Guardian and Wards Act on an adjudication of Karnavan of an undivided Malabar Tarwad as a lunacy. In A. Ramacharlu vs Archakan Ananthacharlu & Anr.	 A.I.R. 1955 A.P. 261 a division Bench consisting of Subba Rao	 C.J. and Satyanarayana Raju	 J. (as they were) considered the question of appointment of a son as the Manager of the Mitakshara family whose father was alleged to be a lunatic. Subba Rao	 C.J. speaking for the Bench	 held that in view of the finding that the Karta	 though was mentally not sound	 but was capable to manage the property	 the application for appointment of a son as manager of the joint family property was not be ordered. Since Vasantrao did not obtain any order from the competent court under the Lunacy Act to have him appointed as Manager of the joint family to alienate the property	 the sale is per se illegal. The sale	 therefore	 appears to be to defeat the statutory right of the appellant. The rigour of the second proviso to section 88(1)(b) is thus inapplicable. Thereby the right and interest as a deemed purchaser acquired by the appellant has not been effected by a subsequent notification issued under section 88(1)(b). The High Court	 therefore	 committed manifest error in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the relief. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the High court	 The Tribunal and District Collector are set aside and that of the Mamlatdar is confirmed	 but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs. Y.Lal. Appeal Allowed.

The appellant took on lease some agricultural lands from one Viswas Rao and by operation of Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948	 which was applicable to the lease	 he became a deemed purchaser from tillers ' day i.e. 1.4.1957. Since the landlord was insane	 the right to purchase was statutorily deferred under section 32 F till date of its cessation or one year after death. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 88(1)(b) of the Act	 certain lands including those of the appellant 's lease hold lands were reserved for industrial purpose; thereby making sections 1 to 87 of the Act inapplicable to the exempted area. During the subsistence of disability of the landlord	 his son Vasant Rao sold the land to the respondent under registered sale deed. Vishwas Rao died in September 1965. The appellant became entitled to purchase the land on and from August 19	 1966. He therefore filed an application before Mamlatdar to fix the price. He fixed on enquiry at Rs.4	95/65 P. which was paid by the appellant. In the enquiry	 the respondent contended that he purchased the property from Vasantrao	 son of the landlord and by operation of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b)	 the lands stood exempted from the operation of Section 1 to 87 of the Act. So the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction to decide the price of the land. The appellant 's contention was that Vasantrao had no right to sell the lands during the life time of his father	 the Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. The sale was invalid and did not bind him. He had acquired statutory right of `deemed purchaser ' and its exemption under section 88(1)(b) did not divest his statutory right. The Mamlatdar accepted the appellant 's contention and allowed the petition. On appeal to the Collector and revision to the Revenue Tribunal	 the decision of Mamlatdar was reversed. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by the appellant	 after obtaining special leave. On the question: whether the operation of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) of the tenancy Act	 1948 has retrospective effect depriving the appellant of the statutory right? 803 Allowing the appeal	 this Court HELD: Section 88 of the Act empowers the government to exempt certain other lands from the purview of Sections 1 to 87 of the Act. The State Governments exercised their power from time to time under Section 88(1)(b) and issued notification and punished in the official Gazette specifying certain areas as being reserved for non agricultural or industrial development i.e.	 urban development. [806C D] It any land in the newly added area has been transferred or acquired between the date of the notification issued under first proviso and October 9	 1964	 such transfer or acquisition of land shall have the effect as if it was made in an area to which the main part of the proviso and Section 88(1)(b) would apply. The necessary consequence would be that the provisions of Sections 1 to 87 shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to such added area. It is implicit that such transfer or acquisition made	 to bring within the net of second proviso	 must be valid and bona fide one and not colourable	 fraudulent	 fictitious or nominal. [809G 810B] In the instant case	 since Vasantrao did not obtain any order from the competent court under the Lunacy Act to have him appointed as Manager of the joint family to alienate the property	 the sale is per se illegal	 The sale	 therefore	 appears to be to defeat the statutory right of the appellant. The rigour of the second proviso to Section 88(1)(b) is thus inapplicable. Thereby the right and interest as deemed purchaser acquired by the appellant has not been affected by subsequent notification issued under section 88(1)(b). [811F G] Sukharam @ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas & Anr. vs Manikchand Motichand Shah & Anr.	 [196] 2 S.C.R. 59; Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari vs Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli	 ; ; Sidram Narsappa Kamble vs Sholapur Borough Municipality & Anr.	 ; ; Parvati & Ors vs Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinghrao Gaekwad	 ; ; Navinchandra Ramanlal vs Kalidas Bhudarbai & Anr.	 ; ; P.K. Gobindan Nair & Ors. vs P. Narayanan Nair & Ors.	 Indian Cases 743; and A. Ramacharlu vs Archakan Ananthacharlu & Anr.	 A.I.R. 1955 A.P. 261	 referred to.