Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat General Clauses Act, 1904
Section 2 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960
The Citizenship Act, 1955
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2008
In the present case, the
view of the Tribunal is not only based on the view taken
by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred
Letters Patent Appeal, but is also getting support from
the above referred decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
(supra). Under these circumstances, it appears that the
order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the
present petition does not deserve to be interfered with."
S. K. Gupta & Anr vs K. P. Jain & Anr on 30 January, 1979
23. The word "person" is defined in the Act, but it is an
inclusive definition, that is, "a person includes a joint
family". Where the definition is an inclusive definition,
the use of the word "includes" indicates an intention to
enlarge the meaning of the word used in the statute.
Consequently, the word must be construed as
comprehending not only such things which they signify
according to their natural import, but also those things
which the interpretation clause declares that they shall
include. Thus, where a definition uses the word
"includes", as contrasted from "means", the word
defined not only bears its ordinary, popular and natural
meaning, but in addition also bears the extended
statutory meaning (see S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain [(1979) 3
SCC 54 : AIR 1979 SC 734]
following Dilworth v. Commr. of Stamps [1899 AC 99 :
Hasmukhalal Dahayabhai & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 1976
26. We are fortified in this view by the decision of this
Court in Hasmukhlal Dahayabhai v. State of
Gujarat [(1976) 4 SCC 100] wherein this Court had
occasion to consider the definition of "person" in the
Ceiling Act, in a different context. It was contended in
that case that in view of the definition of "person" in the
General Clauses Act, 1897, a Central enactment, that is,
"person" shall include any company or association or
body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, there
cannot be a different definition in the Ceiling Act, and
therefore, Section 6(2) of the Ceiling Act treating family
as a "person" was unconstitutional. It was pointed out
that Section 6(2) had the effect of making a person who
held land within ceiling limit, to lose part of his/her
holding, on marriage to someone who also held land
within ceiling limit. (For example, if a bachelor who was
holding 35 acres of land which is within ceiling limit,
married someone who held 20 acres, they will together
lose 19 acres by reason of the fact that they formed a
"family".) This Court negatived the challenge to the
definition of "person". In that context this Court
Page 23 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:36:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
observed that the term "person" is not, strictly speaking,
defined in the Act, and the definition merely clarified
that the term includes a joint family and did not exclude
an individual from being a person in the eye of the law.
This Court observed that the term "person" for the
purposes of the Ceiling Act would include individuals as
natural persons as well as group or body of individuals
as artificial persons, as also a joint family and a family.
This Court proceeded to explain Section 6(2) thus: (SCC
p. 106, para 16)
"16. We do not find any fixed concept of 'person'
anywhere. No doubt the concept is wide so that it
could be contended that it should not be narrowed
down or confined. But, does Section 6(2) do that?
Section 6(2) does not either disable a husband or
wife from owning or holding their separate
properties separately. It does not merge or destroy
their separate legal personalities. It requires their
separate holdings to be grouped together as
though they were held by one person only for the
purpose of determining the ceiling limit for each
member of a family. It may indirectly have the
effect of disabling a member of a family from
holding land up to the prescribed ceiling limit for a
person holding as an individual. In other words, the
result is that such a member of a family will have to
be content with a holding less than that of an
unmarried individual. It has the effect of making it
clear that what have to be grouped together are
the separate properties of individuals belonging to
families other than what are 'joint families' in law.
It takes in and applies to members of families other
than undivided Hindu families. It means that
married persons and their minor children will have
to be viewed as though they hold one lot together
even though they retain their separate legal
personalities and remain competent owners of their
separate holdings. It does not affect either their
legal status or competence. It does reduce their
individual holdings.""
Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960
The common object will have some relevance to
determine whether a group or set of persons is an
association of persons or body of individuals with
reference to a particular statute. For example, when the
said terms "association of persons" or "body of
individuals" occur in a section which imposes a tax on
income, the association must be one the object of which
is to produce income, profit or gain (vide CIT v. Indira
Balkrishna [AIR 1960 SC 1172] , Mohd.