1969 (10) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms ancient estate's impartible status post-Abolition Act, grants maintenance to some plaintiffs

Sri Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu and Ors. Versus Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu and Ors.

The court held that the Venkatagiri Estate was an ancient impartible estate by custom and unaffected by subsequent agreements or Acts. Properties outside ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Venkatagiri Estate was an ancient impartible estate by custom.2. The effect of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 on the properties of the Venkatagiri Estate.3. The entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the B Schedule properties.4. The right of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to receive maintenance under the agreement of 1889 post-abolition of the estate.5. The entitlement of plaintiffs 5 to 7 to maintenance under the agreement of 1889.6. The claim of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to a share in the golden howdah.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Venkatagiri Estate was an ancient impartible estate by custom:The court held that the Venkatagiri Estate was an ancient impartible estate by custom, not made impartible for the first time under the agreement of 1889 or by the Madras Acts of 1902 and 1904. The history of the estate, its recognition by the East India Company, and its inclusion in the schedule of the Impartible Estates Act supported its impartible character. The document of 1889 recognized the already subsisting impartible nature of the estate.2. The effect of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 on the properties of the Venkatagiri Estate:The court found that the Abolition Act did not affect properties outside the territorial limits of the Venkatagiri Estate, such as items 14, 15, and 16 of Schedule B. These properties did not vest in the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act and retained their impartible character. The Madras Impartible Estates Act continued to apply to properties not vested in the Government.3. The entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the B Schedule properties:The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for a share in the B Schedule properties. It was held that the properties retained their impartible character and did not become partible after the abolition of the estate. The agreement of 1889 merely acknowledged and defined the antecedent rights and obligations, affirming the estate's impartible nature.4. The right of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to receive maintenance under the agreement of 1889 post-abolition of the estate:The court held that the agreement of 1889, in so far as it related to the payment of maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to plaintiffs 1 to 4, continued to be in force despite the Abolition Act. The plaintiffs were entitled to receive maintenance from the income of the properties not vested in the Government. The trial judge's decree was modified to calculate interest on the compensation amount at 5 1/2% per annum, with any shortfall to be made up by the first defendant.5. The entitlement of plaintiffs 5 to 7 to maintenance under the agreement of 1889:The court held that plaintiffs 5 and 6, being illegitimate sons of Venugopal, were not entitled to maintenance under the agreement of 1889, as previously decided by the Judicial Committee. The seventh plaintiff, being the son of the fifth plaintiff, could claim no higher rights. The argument that they were gnatis of Venugopal was also rejected as it was not pressed in the previous suit and was without substance.6. The claim of plaintiffs 1 to 4 to a share in the golden howdah:The court found that the golden howdah had been divided among family members and was not treated as impartible. Therefore, plaintiffs 1 to 4 were not entitled to a share in the golden howdah.Conclusion:The judgment of the Division Bench dated August 13, 1965, was set aside. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 were declared entitled to Rs. 1,000 per month out of the income of the Venkatagiri Zamindari, with interest on compensation calculated at 5 1/2% per annum. The suit was dismissed concerning plaintiffs 5 to 9, and the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs.