Pre-cut-off partition in ceiling proceedings may stand unless shown to be sham or collusive; genuine family allotments cannot be ignored.

A pre-cut-off partition deed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 may be disregarded in ceiling proceedings only if the materials show it to be sham, collusive, or not an actual divestiture of title or possession; a genuine partition cannot be ignored merely because the family allotments are later disputed. The text also notes that the State's challenge to recorded rights may fail where affected family members are not impleaded. The Bench recorded differing views on whether the daughters' allotments were bona fide or unreal, and no majority decision emerged on the merits, so the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partition deed executed and registered before the statutory cut-off date could be ignored for ceiling purposes on the ground that the allotment to minor daughters was unnatural, sham, or contrary to Hindu law; (ii) whether the State's cross-objections could lawfully displace the rights recorded in favour of the elder daughters without their being impleaded as parties.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 8, 10, 11, 18 and 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was examined in the light of the deeming fiction created by the Amending Act and the limited scope of interference with genuine pre-cut-off transfers or partitions. One view held that the partition deed was a bona fide family arrangement or, at least, could not be invalidated merely because it provided for the daughters' education and marriage, and that the State could not sustain the cross-objections without impleading the affected daughters. The other view held that the authorities could pierce an ostensible partition if the materials showed it to be sham or unreal, and that the surrounding circumstances here supported the conclusion that the daughters' allotments did not effect a real severance.

Conclusion: The Bench delivered differing conclusions: one Judge held that the partition could not be ignored and that the lands allotted to the elder daughters had to be excluded from the family unit, while the other Judge held that the partition was not genuine and that the lands remained includible for ceiling computation.

Final Conclusion: There was no majority decision on the merits, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a Larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: For ceiling proceedings, an authority may disregard a pre-cut-off transfer or partition if the materials establish it to be a sham or collusive transaction and not an actual divestiture of title or possession; a genuine partition executed before the relevant cut-off date cannot be ignored merely because its familial allotments are later disputed.

---