SRIMANTHU RAJAH YARALAGADDA SIVARAMA PRASAD BAHADUR ZAMINDAR Vs. YARALAGADDA VENKATA RAMALINGANNA PRASAD BAHADUR ZAMINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, which on reference has come before this Bench. It arises out of a suit filed for recovery of maintenance at Rs. 500 per month together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum with a charge upon Devarakota. Estate or a sufficient portion thereof or on the compensation amount in the event the estate is abolished and taken over by the Government.

(2.) The facts of the case are few and simple. Raja Yarlagadda Ankineni Prasad Bahadur, the great grand-father of the plaintiff and the defendant v/ho was holder of the zamindari known as Challapalli or Devarakota Estate died on 1st May, 1875, leaving behind him three sons. Sri Mallikarjuna Prasad Naidu Bahadur was the eldest son who succeeded him. He is the true grandfather of the defendant. On his succession to the estate his second brother Sri Durga Prasad Naidu Bahadur brought a suit O.S. No. 18 of 1880 for partition of the zamindari. The matter went up in appeal to the Privy Council which decided on 1st May, 1890, that Devarakota estate was impartible. As a result it appears the estate was subsequently included in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). Thereupon the said brother and the third brother Sri Venkata Ramalinga Prasad Bahadur who is the true grandfather of the plaintiff respectively brought their suits O.S. Nos. 10 and 13 of 1891 on the file of the District Court, Krishna, for maintenance.

(3.) They were however granted a maintenance of Rs. 750 a month. Sri Mallikarjuna Prasad Naidu died in 1921 leaving his only son Sri Ankineni Prasad Bahadur, the father of the defendant. The 3rd brother Venkata Ramalinga Prasad Bahadur died on 4th May, 1924, leaving three sons of whom the father of the plaintiff was the second son. He instituted a suit O.S. No. 31 of 1925 on the file of the District Court, Krishna, claiming maintenance against the defendant who had become the holder of the estate. That suit was however withdrawn. Thereafter he died in 1940. The plain tiff as the junior member of the family brought this suit for maintenance in 1947 claiming the reliefs as stated above. The claim he set up was based on three grounds : (1) that the estate of Devarakota is the joint family estate of the parties and the plaintiff as the junior member of the family is entitled to maintenance out of the said estate, (2) that he is entitled to such maintenance by the usage of the family and by the custom prevailing in that part of the country and (3) that at any rate under section 9 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act (Second Amending Act XII of 1934) he is entitled to maintenance. This claim was resisted by the defendant on the main ground that since there has been disruption of joint family status as a result of clear and unequivocal declaration of the plaintiff's father in O.S. No. 31 of 1925 and renunciation and surrender of right, if any, on behalf of himself and his branch, if any, for valuable consideration, the estate became the separate property of the defendant and his branch. The plaintiff therefore can set up no claim even under section 9 of Madras Act II of 1904. Besides, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in point of fact can ever set up successfully a right to maintenance on the basis of usage of family or custom of the country, for, there is none of the kind in their favour. He further contended that the amount of maintenance claimed is excessive having regard to the income of the property. In any event an amount of more than Rs. 50 per month cannot be awarded.