RAMASWAMI, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit 0. S. 351 of 1952 filed for partition by 7 plaintiffs viz : (1) Sri Raja Venkata Kumara Krishna Yachendra, (2) Sri Rajah V. V. Ramakrishna, (3) Sri Raja V. V. Rajagopala Krishna, (4) Sri Raja V. V. Muvva Gopala Krishna, (5) Sri Raja V. Rajeswara Rao, (6) Sri Rajah V. Maheswara Rao and (7) Sri Raja V. Mamlana Gopala Krishna, minor by next friend and mother Smt. Sridevamma in respect of the Venkatagiri Estate and other properties as accretions to this estate. The first defendant in the suit was the holder of the Zamindari until it was notified and taken over by the State on 7/09/1949. The 3rd and 4th defendants are brothers of the first defendant. The third defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 7 and 8 are his sons. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of the 4th defendant. The 9th and 10th defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 4th plaintiff Shri Raja V. V. Muvva Gopala Krishna died during the pendency of the appeals against the suit in the High court of Madras. After the filing of the petition of appeal in this court Sri Raja V. Maheswara Rao, the 6th plaintiff also died. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree : 285 JUDGEMENT_281_3_1969Image1.jpg 286 The Venkatagiri Estate is an ancient impartible estate in ellore District included in the Schedule under the Madras Impartible Estates Act (Act II of 1904). In the year 1878, Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama, who heads the above pedigree, was the Zamindar. He had seven sons of whom three had been given away in adoption. The eldest of the sons was Rajagopala Krishna to whom Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama handed over the entire estate and certain other properties with a view to spend the rest of his life in piety and meditation. In 1889, Muddukrishna and Venkata Krishna, two of the sons, claimed a share in the estate contending that the estate was partible and the four sons were each entitled to a fourth share in the family properties. Rajagopalakrishna, however, asserted its impartible character. Ultimately there was a settlement between the parties wherein Muddu Krishna and Venkata Krishna withdrew their claim to partition and recognised the impartible character of the Zamindari. The settlement involved the payment of large sums of money by Rajagopala Krishna to his three younger brothers Muddu Krishna, Venkata Krishna and Venugopal. Venugopal was then a minor and was represented by the father Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama himself. The terms of the settlement were embodied in a stamped document bearing the date April 8, 1889. Its terms may be summarised as follows : (a) recognition by all the brothers that the Venkatagiri Estate was impartible with descent along the eldest line, that is, by Rajagopala Krishna, the then Zamindar and after him by his son, son's son and so on in the eldest male line; (b) the three brothers of the then Rajah Muddu Krishna; Venkata Krishna and Venugopal, should each receive a sum of Rs. 5,81,252-11-10; (c) Muddu Krishna, Venkata Krishna and Venugopal should also receive a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 each for providing themselves with residence; (d) a provision for the marriage expenses of Venkata Krishna and Venugopal and (e) provision that Rajagopala Krishna and his successors to the estate should pay to Muddu Krishna, Venkata Krishna and Venugopal a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 each per mensem for life and on their death a similar amount to their male descendants (Purusha Santhathi) by way of allowance, the amount payable to each branch being Rs. 1,000.00 irrespective of the number of descendents. Venugopal, the last of the four brothers, never married and plaintiffs 5 and 6 to the suit are his illegitimate sons. In 1932 plaintiffs 5 and 6 instituted a suit against the estate (0. S. No 30 of 1932) claiming, maintenance allowance and relying upon the agreement of 1889 and in the alternative on custom and Hindu law. The Subordinate Judge found that custom was not proved and that they were not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu law. But he found that the claimants were entitled to the maintenance under the deed as Purusha Santhathi. On appeal the High court agreed with the finding of the Trial court as regards the absence of any custom but differed from. the interpretation of Purusha Santhathi and held that the term was applicable only to legitimate sons and not to illegitimate sons. The High court, however, took the view that the plaintiffs 5 and 6 were entitled to maintenance under the Hindu law. The judgment of the High court is reported in Maharaja of Venkatagiri v. Raja Rajeswara Rao. The matter was taken in appeal to the Judicial Committee and the Judicial Committee allowed the appeal of the Rajah holding that the illegitimate sons of Venugopal were not entitled to maintenance either under the agreement of 1889 or under the Hindu law, 287 The decision of the Judicial Committee is reported in Raja Krishna Yachendra v. Raja Rajeswara Rao
(3.) AT the time of the notification of the estate under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act), the first defendant in the suit held the estate and was the principal landholder under the Act. Under Section 66 of the Abolition Act, on and from the notified date, the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904 (Act 2 of 1904), shall be deemed to have been repealed in its application to the estate. Out of the advance compensation first deposited. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 had been paid a sum of Rs. 75,000.00 as maintenance holders under Section 45 of the Abolition Act. They were entitled under the Act to a further sum of Rs. 75,000.00 in the second instalment of compensation and a share in such additional compensation that may be given. They were also given interim payments at Rs. 9,000.00 per year under Section 50 of the Abolition Act. Under Section 47 of the Act they were also entitled to Ryotwari Patta. The case of the plaintiff was that the Venkatagiri Estate became an impartible estate only under the agreement of 1889 between the parties and became a statutory impartible estate by virtue of its inclusion in the Schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904 and that on the repeal of that enactment by Section 66 of the Abolition Act the estate became partible. The contention of the plaintiffs was that as junior members of a joint family they were entitled to a share in the compensation amount and also a share in Schedule B properties which were not vested in the State government. So far as the claim to a share in the compensation amount is concerned, they were proceeding under the Abolition Act itself. The suit was principally confined to the claim for a share in the B Schedule properties and for an alternative claim for maintenance at Rs. 1,000.00 per month. So far as the B Schedule properties are concerned, the claim was confined to shares in three items of immovable properties, namely: (1) Motimahal No. 187, Mount Road, Madras, (2) Venkatagiri Rajah's Bungalow at Nellore and (3) Venkatagiri Rajah's bungalow at Kalahasti. Out of the movable properties the claim was confined to subitem 8 of Item 8 of the B Schedule, that is, a golden Howdah. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the repeal of the Impartible Estates Act by virtue of the notification will have the effect of changing the character of the properties in the B Schedule and making them partible. It was contended that even if for any reason the plaintiffs are not granted a share in the properties of the estate, they must be paid a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem in terms of the original agreement of April 8, 1889.;