Raja Muvva Gopalakrishnayachendra
& Ors Vs. Raja V. V. Sarvagna Krishna Yachendra & Ors [1962] INSC 322
(19 November 1962)
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, RAGHUBAR DAS, S.K.
KAPUR, J.L.
SARKAR, A.K.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION: 1963 AIR 842 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 280
CITATOR INFO :
E 1970 SC1795 (6)
ACT:
Estates Abolition-Apportionment of
compensation--Legislative competence-Entries 9, 21, List 2, Entry 7, List 3,
Government of India Act, 1935-Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXVI of 1948), ss. 3,41,45,54.
HEADNOTE:
Consequent upon the notification under the
Estates Abolition Act, the impartible Estate of Venkatagiri vested in the
Government and on claims made under s. 41 of the Act, the tribunal determined
advance compensation to the various persons interested. On appeal against the
decision of the Tribunal it was contended, that-(1) the impartible character of
the Estate ceased when the estate vested in the Government; (2) the
compensation did not bear the character of impartibility as it became the
property of the joint family ; (3) s. 45 was a law altering the rights of
distribution of property among the members of a joint family and wag beyond the
legislative competence of the State Legislature ; (4) the law was discriminatory
; (5) the appellants were not maintenance holders but creditors; (6) the amount
of "Paishkush" payable to the Government ought not to have been
deducted from the compensation in calculating the amounts payable to the
appellants, as the holder of the estate alone was liable to pay it.
Held, that the first question was raised
directly in another proceeding and it was not necessary to decide it in these
proceedings which were only in respect of advance compensation.
Held, further, that in respect of such
compensation the proportion of distribution could only be, in accordance with
the provisions of sub-s. 2 of s. 45 of the Act by which alone the appellants
were entitled to claim advance compensation.
281 (2)that the legislation was not one in respect
of wills, intestacy and succession, under Entry 7, List 3, but under Entry 9 of
List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
(3)that in so far as the legislation came
within Art. 31 (B) of the Constitution it was not open to attack as offending
Art. 14 of the Constitution.
(4)the appellants were maintenance holders
howsoever they had been described in the earlier documents and that the earlier
documents did not constitute them as creditors of the holders of the estate.
(5)The distributable compensation could only
be arrived at after deducting the liabilities mentioned in the proviso to s. 41
(1) due from the estate to Government from the amount of compensation for the
estate and that s. 54 (A) (ii) required that half of those liabilities (including
Peshkash) due to the Government be deducted from half the amount of
compensation which was to be distributed under s. 54A (i).
Held, further, that in the other appeal
proportion of 1/5th fixed by s. 45 had been rightly applied and that the contention
that the proportion should have been that which the allowances in the earlier
documents bore to the total income in the year 1889, was not tenable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 116 to 125 of 1961.
Appeals by. special leave from the judgment
and decrees dated March 4, 1955, of the former Andhra Pradesh High Court,
Guntur, in S. T. Appeals Nos. 83,85-88,90,91 and 119121 of 1954.
M. C. 'Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
R. Ganapathy Iyer, V. Sureshan and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants (in
C.As.Nos. 116-119 of 61) aid the respondents (in C.As.Nos. 120-125 of 1961).
282 A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, V. Yedantachari
and T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondents 1 to 5 (in C.A. No. 116/61) and
respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 117-119/61) and the appellants in C.A.
Nos.120125/61.
K.Bhimasankaram and P. D. Menon, for
respondent No. 2 (in C.A.Nos. 117-119/61).
1962. November 19. The judgment of the Court
was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. These appeals arise out of the order of the
Tribunal appointed under s. 8 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter called the Act,
apportioning the advance compensation given and interim payments made in
connection with the vesting of the Venkatagiri Estate in the Government of
Madras as a result of a notification issued under sub-s. (4) of s. 1 of, the
Act from the notified date, i.e., September 7, 1949.
The Act received the assent of the Governor
General on April 2, 1949 and some of its sections, including ss. 4 and 8,
mentioned in sub-s. (4) of s. 1, came into force at once.
The other sections came into force with
respect to the Venkatagiri Estate from the notified date. With effect from the
notified date, i.e., September 7, 1949, the entire Venkatagiri Estate stood
transferred to the Government and vested in it by reason of s. 3(b) of the Act.
283 Section 39 provides for the Director of
Settlements to determine the basic annual sum in respect of the estate and also
the total compensation payable in respect of the estate, in accordance with the
provisions of the Act.
Section 54-A provides that the Government
shall estimate roughly the amount of compensation payable in respect of the
estate and deposit one-half of that amount within six months from the notified
date in the office of the Tribunal as advance payment on account of
compensation. Subs. (2) of s. 50 provides for the deposit of interim payments
by the Government during the period between the notified date and the final
determination and deposit of the compensation payable in respect of the estate.
In respect of the Venkatagiri Estate, the
Government deposited Rs. 12,11,419/as and by way of advance payment of
compensation, after deducting Rs. 7,28,500/payable to the Government by the
Estate for peishkush out of the sum of Rs. 19,39,919-8-0, half of the estimated
amount of compensation payable. The Government also deposited as interim
payment Rs. 1,55,194/for each of the Fasli years 1359 to 1362 F. It is the
distribution of these amounts in deposit as advance payment of compensation and
interim payments, which is the subject matter for determination in these
appeals.
To understand the various claims for payment
out of these deposits, the following genealogical table will be helpful:
284 KUMARA YACHENDUR VARU | |
----------------------------------------------------| | Rajagopala Krishna Raja
Venkata Krishna Yachendra(Deacsed) Yachendra (Deacsed) | | | | Rajagopala
Krishna Raja V. Kumara Krishna Yachendra Yachendra (dead). (Petitioner in O.P.
No. 392 of 1950) | Petitioner | | | --------------------------------------| | |
| | Raja V. Venkata Raja V. Rama Raja Venkata | Krishna Krishna Rajagopala |
Yachendra R.10 Yachendra Krishna Yachendra | O.P. R.11 O.P. R.12 O.P.
| No. 382/50 384/50 | |
--------------------------------------------------------| | | | vegna Kumara
Raja Venkata Rajagopala Krishna Krishna R-3. R.4 O.P. 256/50 | | |
-------------------------------| | Rajagopala Krishna Gopal Krishna Yachendra
R-6. R-7.
| | | | Son Unnamed R-8. Son Unnamed R-9.
285
--------------------------------------------------| | Raja Maddukrishna Raja
Venugopala Yachendra Krishna Yachendra (Died Issueless) | |
--------------------------| | Raja V. Rajeswara Rao Raja Maheswara Rao (R-14)
(R-15) | ----------| -------------------------Venkata | | Gopala Minor
Madanagopal Died Krishna (R-16 O.P.
(R-15) No. 385 of 50) 3/50.
------------| | vaneethu R-O.P.
3/50 286 The Venkatagiri Estate is an ancient
estate in North Arcot and the necessary history of the estate for the purposes
of this case is contained in the document Exhibit A-1 with which we now deal.
Kumara Yachendra Bahadur Varu, who tops the genealogical table noted above and
his four sons mentioned therein, are parties to this document. Kumara Yachendra
Bahadur Varu represents also his minor son Venugopala Krishna Yachendra. The
document recites that the estate had been made over in 1878 to Rajagopala
Krishna Yachendra, the eldest of the four brothers, by their father Kumara
Yachendra Bahadur Varu, the then Rajah, as he wanted to devote himself to
offering prayers to God for obtaining salvation. He was said to be the sole
heir to the estate, as Venkatagiri Zamindari was an impartible estate and
succession to it was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. In 1889, two
of the brothers, Venkata Krishna Yachendra' and Muddukrishna Yachendra,
expressed a desire for the partition of the estate. The then Rajah, i.e.,
Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra, the eldest brother, asserted that it was not
liable for partition. The four brothers then consulted their father and he told
them :
"that the Venkatagiri Zamindari was
originally acquired by the valour of our ancestors in warfare, that the
Zamindari is ancient, that it is an Impartible Estate which has to pass in the
order of primogeniture, that at the time when the Sannad Istimdar Milk was
given to the Raja of Venkatagiri who was ruling at the time of the permanent
settlement th e Peshkush was settled for this Venkatagiri Samasthanam on the
amount which was being paid as tribute and on the entire expenses relating to
military assistance that was to be rendered lo the Nawab's government which was
in power previously that for this reason this Venkatagiri Samasthanam is not at
all partible that the 287 immovable properties relating thereto and also other
immovable properties acquired with the income of the said Samasthanam are not
liable for partition that this is his opinion in regard to immovable
properties........
The father suggested partition of certain
other property.
The terms of the final settlement between the
father and his four sons are then noted. They may be briefly mentioned.
(1) As the Venkatagiri Estate is an
Impartible Estate and it passes to the eldest son by the rule of lineal
primogeniture, the said Estate, the immovable properties pertaining to it and
other immovable properties acquired with the income derived from the said
Estate will be enjoyed by the Rajah, the eldest brother, and after his death
his sons and grandsons and so on in succession shall enjoy, always the eldest
male being the heir.
(2) If in the line of the said Rajah, his
natural sons or adopted so s do not have male issue and that line stops short,
then the properties shall be enjoyed by him who is the nearest heir and who is
also the eldest to whom the impartible properties of the family pass according
to law and custom and the same shall be enjoyed by his successors.
(3) The said Estate, all the properties
pertaining to it, the title, power, privileges, all these shall be enjoyed
fully and with all powers according to law and custom by the respective
individuals who would be ruling at the respective periods subject to the
condition of payment of allowances to other members of the family from the
income derived from the Estate and from the properties in a manner befitting
their respective status.
(4) The allowances were settled as follows
Each of the brothers was to get Rs. 1,000/per mouth 288 for the rest of his
life. After the death of each of these brothers, his male heir would continue
to get this allowance of Rs. 1,000/per month. This amount of Rs. 1,000/would be
distributable between such male heirs and their male issues, according to Hindu
Law. If the male member died without leaving a natural son or an adopted son,
the allowance was to pass the nearest agnates of the same branch according to
Hindu Law and in case he left a wife or wives who had to be paid maintenance,
their maintenance would be a liability on such agnate. It was further provided
that if any of the three lines of the family ceased for want of male issue,
i.e., whether natural or adopted son, then subject to the condition that the
wife or wives of the surviving male member of that branch who dies last shall
be paid for their life-time as maintenance a sum of Rs. 500/being one half of
the entire allowance of Rs. 1000/that was being paid to the said male member,
the allowance which was being paid to that branch would entirely cease.
This document has been acted upon.
In 1904, the Madras Impartible Estates Act,
1904 (Act 11 of 1904) came into force. The Venkatagiri Estate was included in
the Schedule of that Act and had to be deemed to be an impartible estate in
view of s. 3 of that Act. Section 9 of that Act mentioned the persons entitled
to maintenance out of the impartible estate, where for the purpose of
ascertaining the succession to the impartible estate the estate had to be
regarded as the property of a joint Hindu family.
In view of s. 66 of the Act the Madras Impartible
Estates Act of 1904 is deemed to have been repealed in its application to the
Venkatagiri Estate with effect from the notified date. The expression
'impartible estate' in the Act means an estate governed immediately before the
notified date by the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904 and therefore applies
to this estate.
289 S. 41 of the Act provides for the
compensation to be deposited in the office of the Tribunal. Section 42 provides
for the; filing of claims to the compensation before the Tribunal by persons
claiming any amount by way of a share or by way of maintenance or otherwise and
by creditors. By s. 43, the tribunal is to inquire into the validity of the
claims and determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to the
compensation deposited and the amount to which each of them is entitled.
Section 44 provides that as a preliminary to
the final determination, the Tribunal shall apportion the compensation among
such persons whose rights or interests in the estates stood transferred to the
Government, including persons who are entitled to be maintained from the estate
and its Income, as far as possible, in accordance with the value of their
respective interests in the estate. Its sub-s. (2) provides how the value of
those interests shall be ascertained, and says that in case of an impartible
estate referred to in s. 45, the ascertainment shall be in accordance with the
provisions contained in that section and in such rules, not inconsistent with
that section, as may be made by the Government in that behalf. Section 45 is
the main section for our purpose and may be quoted :
"45. (1) In the case of an impartible
estate which had to be regarded as the property of a joint Hindu family for the
purpose of ascertaining the succession thereto immediately before the notified
date, the following provisions shall apply.
(2) The Tribunal shall determine the
aggregate compensation payable to all the following persons, considered as a
single group :(a) the principal landholder and his legitimate sons, grandsons,
and great grandsons in 290 the male. line living or in the womb on the notified
date including sons, grandsons and great-grandsons adopted before such date
(who are hereinafter called 'sharers') ; and (b) other persons who, immediately
before the notified date, were entitled to maintenance out of the estate and
its income either under section 9 or 12 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act,
1904, or under any decree or order of a Court, award, or other instrument in
writing or contract or family arrangement, which is binding on the principal
landholder (who are hereinafter called 'maintenance holders'):
Provided that no such maintenance-holder
shall be entitled to any portion of the aggregate compensation aforesaid, if
before the notified date, his claim for maintenance, or the claim of his branch
of the family for maintenance, has been settled or discharged in full.
(3) The Tribunal shall next determine which
creditors, if any, are lawfully entitled to have their debts paid from and out
of the assests of the impartible estate and the amount of which each of them is
so entitled;
and only the remainder of the aggregate
compensation shall be divisible among the sharers and maintenance-holders as
hereinafter provided.
(4) The portion of the aggregate compensation
aforesaid payable to the maintenance holders shall be determined by the
Tribunal and notwithstanding any arrangement already made in respect of
maintenance whether by a decree or order of a Court, award or other instrument
in writing or contract or family arrangement, such portion shall not exceed 291
one-fifth of the remainder referred to in subsection (3), except in the case
referred to in the second proviso to section 47, sub-section (2).
(5) (a) The Tribunal shall, in determining
the amount of the compensation payable to the maintenance-holders and
apportioning the same among them, have regard, as far as possible, to the
following considerations, namely:-(i) the compensation payable in respect of
the estate ;
(ii) the number of persons to be maintained
out of the estate (iii) the nearness of relationship of the person claiming to
be maintained;
(iv) the other sources of income of the claimant;
and (v) the circumstances of the family of the claimant.
(b) For the purpose of securing (i) that the
amount of compensation payable to the maintenance-holders does not exceed the
limit specified in sub-section (4) and (ii) that the same is apportioned among
them on an equitable basis, the Tribunal shall have power, wherever necessary,
to re-open any arrangement already made in respect of maintenance, whether by a
decree or order of a Court, award, or other instrument in writing or contract
or family arrangement.
(6) The balance of the aggregate compensation
shall be divided among the sharers, as if 292 they owned such balance as a
joint Hindu family and a partition thereof had been effected among them on the
notified date," Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna Yachendra, appellant in
Appeal No. 117 of 1961, hereinafter called Krishna Bahadur, filed Original
Petition No. 2300 of 1953 before the 'Tribunal.
Three of his sons Ramakrishna Yachendra,
Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra and Movva Gopala Krishna Yachendra, appellants in
Civil Appeals-Nos. 118, 119 and 116 of 1961, respectively, filed separate
petitions.
By their applications they raised the
contentions that they were entitled to an amount in the compensation as
sharers, as the impartible estate lost its character as such from the notified
date and that the compensation payable with respect to their estate became
partible and that in any case, they were entitled to the amount as creditors.
It was further contended that the provisions of s. 45 of the Act were ultra
vires the State Legislature and were discriminatory and so void and that the
maintenance amount be determined with respect to the amount of compensation and
not with respect to the amount of compensation minus the amount of peishkush
which was payable by the estate to the Government. None of these contentions
was accepted by the Tribunal or by the Special Tribunal constituted in
accordance with s. 21 of the Act for bearing appeals against the orders of the
Tribunal.
The Tribunal fixed Rs. 75,000/as the amount
payable to Krishna Bahadur's branch out of the sum of Rs. 12,11,419/deposited
as advance payment of compensation and further fixed the ratio of the value of
the interests of Krishna Bahadur and the two brothers of the present Rajah, in
the 1/5th of the advance compensation, at 75:75:92. The amounts 293 deposited
as interim Payment were to be distributed in the same, ratio.
The present Rajah, Sarvagna Kumara Krishna,
had urged before the 'tribunal that the amount of maintenance to be paid to
Krishna Bahadur's branch should be calculated on a different basis which, in
brief, may be said to be that the amount to which he be; held entitled out of
the compensation should bear the same proportion to the total compensation as
the monthly allowance payable to him under the document Exhibit A-1 bears to
the income of the Estate in 1889 when that allowance of Rs. 1,000/per month was
fixed. This contention also did not find favour with the Tribunal or the
Special Tribunal on appeal. The Rajah has therefore filed Civil Appeals Nos.
120 to 123 of 1961. He has also filed two appeals Nos. 124 and 125 with respect
to the interim payments made so Krishna Bahadur's branch for the Fasli years
1359 and 1360 which were apportioned in accordance with the same principle
which the Tribunal had adopted for the distribution of the maintenance allowance
out of the advance compensation.
The points urged for the appellants in
appeals Nos. 116 to 119 are (1) Venkatagiri Estate was, impartible by custom
that impartibility was recognized when disputes arose in 1889, that
impartibility continued under the Madras Impartible Estates Act of 1904 but
ceased when the Estate vested in the Government on September 7, 1949;
(2) In these circumstances, the compensation
Will not bear the character of impartibility as the property,, became the
property of the joint family, the coparcenary having continued all through 294
(3)Section 45 and other provisions of the Act are ultra vires the State
Legislature for want of legislative competence inasmuch as the said Legislature
had no power to enact a law disturbing the rights of a joint family and also
because the provisions of s. 45 are discriminatory and offend Art. 14 of the
Constitution as they provide for the maintenance holders to get 1/5th out of
the compensation while the proprietor and his sons are to get 4/5ths out of it
after satisfying the claims of the creditors;
(4) The appellants are not maintenance holders,
but creditors;
(5) The amount of peishkush payable by the
Venkatagiri Estate to the Government was not to be deducted from the
compensation when calculating maintenance amount payable to the maintenance.
holders.
Now, the amount of peishkush payable to the
Government had to be deducted out of the amount to be deposited under subs. (1)
of s. 54-A in view of the provisions of its sub-s.
(2) which provides that from the amount to be
deposited under sub-s. (1) the Government shall be entitled to deduct one half
of all moneys, if any, due to them in respect of peishkush. Sub-s. (4) of s.
54-A authorizes the Tribunal, after such enquiry as it thinks fit, to apportion
the amount deposited in pursuance of that section, among the persons mentioned
in that sub-section as far as possible in accordance with the value of their
respective interests and further provides that the provisions of ss. 42 to 46
(both inclusive), shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the amount so
deposited.
It is true that the peshkash was a payment
which the holder of the Estate had to make to the Government out of the income
of the estate and that any arrears of peshkash remain a liability on the 295
estate. It was in view of this fact that s.55(1) of the Act which takes away
the right of any land-holder to collect any rent which had accrued to him from
any ryot before the notified date and was outstanding on that, date empowers
the manager appointed under s. 6 to collect such rent and to pay the balance,
if any, after making certain deductions specified in the section, including any
arrears of peshkash to the landholder. The real compensation which is to be
paid by the Government on the vesting of the estate must be equal to the amount
of the value of the estate as such, minus the liabilities of the estate. What
is to be distributed between the various persons entitled to the compensation
must be the net amount and not the theoretical compensation for the estate as
such. In this view of the matter too, the share of the maintenance-holders will
have to be calculated in the amount of compensation deposited, i.
e., the amount of compensation minus the
permissible deductions including peshkash.
It is therefore clear that the Tribunal could
not have ignored the deduction of peshkash from one half of the estimated
amount of compensation payable in respect of the estate and had to apportion
the amount deposited after taking into consideration such deduction. The
contention for the appellants that the amount to be considered for calculating
the share of the maintenance-holders should have been taken at Rs.
19,00,000/-odd and not at Rs. 12,00,000/odd, the actual amount of the deposit,
is not sound.
The next question is whether the allowance is
a debt owed by the Rajah-landholder to his brothers to whom the allowance was
to be paid. It might have been so only if it was postulated that the Rajah had
purchased the share of the other members of the family and was paying the sale
price in the form of an allowance. This is, not what the document Exhibit A-1
recites. There is nothing in it to indicate 296 that the brothers of the Rajah
to whom the estate had been made over by their father claimed a share in the
estate after they had been told by their father that the estate was impartible.
The sale price is normally fixed while the amount of allowance to be payable is
an indefinite quantity depending upon length of time through which each of the
brother's branches continues to have a male member. The word 'allowance'
appears to have been used either as a dignified expression preferable in form
to that of 'maintenance' or due to the idea that the word, maintenance’ is to
be used appropriately only for the amounts to be paid to female members of the
family in certain circumstances.
The allowance referred to in the deed,
Exhibit A.-1, as payable to Kishen Chander, father of Krishna Bahadur, is not
akin to a debt owed by the Rajah to Kishen Chander. It is not made payable on
account of certain loans taken by the Rajah, but is payable for maintenance, as
the estate being impartible the other members of the family had a reasonable
claim to maintenance. The only ground urged in support of the contention that
the allowance is not an allowance for maintenance is that the word
'maintenance' is used in the document A-1 in connection with the amount payable
to the widows. A different terminology in referring to the amounts to be paid
to Kishen Chander and his brothers does not change the character of the
payment. The widows were to get a share out of the same allowance when there
was no male member in the particular family. That amount cannot be a debt so
long as it was payable to a male member and a maintenance when payable to a
female member. Kishen Chander himself 'referred to this amount as maintenance
in earlier proceedings.
We therefore hold that the view expressed by
the Courts below with respect to the nature of this allowance is correct.
297 The validity of s. 45 of the Act on the
ground of the' competence of the Legislature of the State was not questioned in
the High Court. The contention, however, is that the Act was made by the State
Legislature by virtue of Entry 21 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India Act, 1935, which reads:
"Land, that is to say, rights in or over
land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the;
collection of rents transfer, alienation and devolution of agricultural land ;
land improvement and agricultural loans ; colonization; Courts of Wards;
Encumbered and attached estates ;
treasure trove." The question of
succession to the impartible estate does not come under this Entry and comes
under Entry No. 7 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of
India Act which reads :
"Wills, intestacy, and succession, save
as regards agricultural land." The reply for the respondent is that the
Act can come within either item No. 9 or item No. 21 or both, of List II' of
the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935.
We are of opinion that the Act does not (teal
with the succession to impartible estates. The Act acquires the impartible
estate which vests in the Government on the notified date. The rights of the
and holder in the estate cease on that date. The Act was enacted by the State
Legislature by virtue of item No. 9, List II, Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India Act which reads:
"Compulsory acquisition of land."
The Act is not ultra vires the State Legislature Theattack on the validity of
s. 45 of the Act on 298 the ground of its contravening the provisions of Art 14
of the Constitution is not open to the appellants in view of Art. 31B which
provides inter alia that not of the Acts specified in the Ninth Schedule nor
any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become
void on the ,round that the Act takes away or abridges any of the rights
conferred by any provisions of Part III.
Article 14 is in that Part of the
Constitution. The Act is mentioned at item No. 10 in the Ninth Schedule. We
therefore hold that the provisions of s. 45 of the Act are not void.
The next question for determination is
whether the appellants should have got share in the compensation as
"sharers' on account of the partible character of the estate reviving on
the notified date as a result of the repeal of the Impartible Estates Act,
1904. We are concerned in these appeals with the distribution of advance
compensation given and interim payments made in accordance with the provisions
of the Act. We have held the relevant provisions to be valid. Therefore, the
appellants can only ask for their share of the compensation in accordance with
those provisions. We do not consider it necessary to decide the question
whether any property ceased to be impartible after the notified date and
understand that an appeal in which the question directly arises is pending
against a judgment in a civil suit holding that the buildings to which sub-s.
(4) of s. 18 applied were impartible and were owned by the Rajah.
Even if the appellants had any right in the
estate, (though we do not so decide), that right ceased on the notified date in
view of the provisions of s. 3 of the Act and thereafter they are entitled to
such rights and privileges only as are recognized or conferred by or under the
Act.
Section 3 of the Act provides the
consequences of notification of the estate. The relevant portions of s. 3 are :
" x x x x 299 (b) . the entire
estate...... shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in
them.........
(c) all rights and interests created in or
over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other
land-holder, shall as against the Government cease and determine x x x x x (e)
the principal or any other landholder and any other person, whose tights stand
transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c), shall be
entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on
him by or under this Act., x x x x x (g)any rights and privileges which may
have accrued in the estate, to any person before the notified date, against the
principal or any other landholder thereof, shall cease and determine, and shall
not be enforceable against the Government or such landholder, and every such
person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized
or conferred on him by or under this Act.' The estate was impartible up to the
moment it vested in the Government on the notified date. Whatever be the nature
of the compensation payable, the distribution of the compensation between the
persons who had an interest in the estate would be in accordance with the
provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 45 which defines "sharers' to be the
principal landholder and his legitimate sons, grandsons and the great-grandsons
in the main line living, or in the womb on the notified date, including sons, grandsons
and great-grandsons adopted before such date. The appellants do not come under
any of the persons mentioned in this 300 clause and therefore they cannot get,
compensation as "sharers".
The result of our findings is that all the
four appeals nos.
116 to 119 of 1961 fail.
The dispute in the remaining six civil
appeals relates to the principle on which the amounts of maintenance payable to
the persons entitled to it are to be calculated. The contention is that when
the net income of the estate in 1889, was about Rs' 6,00,000/a year, the
allowance payable to each brother was Rs'. 1,000/per month and that therefore
the value of the interest of each brother in the estate came to about 1/50th of
the income. The amount payable to him now, it is urged should% bear the same
proportion to the basic annual sum which is first calculated under the
provisions of the Act and later capitalised to obtain the amount of
compensation payable for the estate.
The relevant provisions in connection with
the apportionment of the maintenance allowance applicable to impartible estates
are to be found in s. 45 of the Act, Sub-section (3) provides for determining
the amount to which the creditors of the holder' of the estate are entitled out
of the assets of the estate. The amount due to them is first to be deducted
from the compensation and out of the balance the maintenance-holders as a body
can have an amount equal to 1/5-th and no more. If the amount due to them comes
to less than 1/5th they will get it as they had been getting in the past. If
the , amount exceeds 1/5th of the aforesaid balance,, the tribunal has the
authority, to re-open any arrangement previously made in respect of maintenance
and re-assess the amount to paid to each maintenance-holder, keeping in regard
the provisions of sub-section (5) There is nothing in this sub-section which
authorises the Tribunal to calculate the incidents of the amount of
compensation on the income of the estate at the time it was fixed. Even in the
present case, the amount of 301 maintenance allowance was not. fixed as a
certain proportion of the net income of the estate but was fixed, according to
document A-1, after considering several factors affecting the question as is
apparent from the following statement in' the document "The aforesaid
mediator considered in full the status of all the claimants. the status and
dignity, of the Estate and all the other matters deserving consideration and
settled that the said Rajha. Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra......... of
Venkatagiri should pay the allowances as mentioned below." We are
therefore of opinion,. that the Special Tribunal had held rightly that the
apportionment of the advance payment of compensation and the interim payment
had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
In view of what we have stated above, we
dismiss all the appeals with costs, one :hearing fee for Civil Appeals Nos. 116
to 119 and one hearing fee for C I Appeals Nos. 120 to 125.
Appeals dismissed.
Back
