CHELIKANI LAKSHMIVENKAYAMMA Vs. SRI RAJAH RAO PRADHYUMNA KRISHNA MAHIPATI SURYARAO BAHADUR
LAWS(APH)-1955-8-17
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 26,1955

CHELIKANI LAKSHMIVENKAYAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
SRI RAJAH RAO PRADHYUMNA KRISHNA MAHIPATI SURYARAO BAHADUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SARABIJIT PARTAP BAHADUR SAHI V. INDORJIT PARTAP BAHADUR SAHI [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA MARWARI V. MUDESHWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AGARSINGJI RAI SINGHJI V. BAI NANIBO [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH SHIV SINGH V. AGARSINGHJI RAJASINGJI [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAYYA V. KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VENKATAPPA NAYANIM VARU V. RAJA THIMMA NAYANIM VARU [REFERRED TO]
ALTAF BEGUM V. BRIJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI GOVIND RAO V. N.N.C.T.C.V.FIRMS [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA KESHO PRASAD SINGH V. MADHO PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BISHNATH PRASAD SINGH V. CHANDIKA PRASAD KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VS. CHHOTEY LAL [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDDHA MITRA VS. OFFICIAL RECEIVER, ALIPUR JUDGE S COURT [REFERRED TO]
JOGESWAR NARAIN DEO VS. RAM CHUND DUTT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.)These are connected appeals filed against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal made in a batch of 38 petitions filed by the appellants claiming payment of the amounts alleged to be due to them from and out of the compensation amount deposited by the Government in respect of eight estates. These 8 estates originally formed part of the estates of Kolanka and Veeravaram. On 6th January 1887, the then proprietor of the estates Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur executed a will, inter alia, providing for the payment of annuity of Rs. 3,000 to his maternal uncle Sri Ghelikani Venkatarayanimgaru and his four brothers. After his death, his adopted son Kumara Mahipathi, in his turn, executed a will on 15th December, 1897, whereunder he accepted his father's bequest in favour of the Ghelikani brothers and specifically provided for paying them in perpetuity a sum of Rs. 3,000 every year. His widow, after his death, took the present Rajah of Kolanka in 1932 in adoption. The Cheliiani brothers divided the annual payment between themselves and each was receiving Rs. 600 towards his share. Some of the descendants alienated their interest in favour of third parties. The successive devolutions of the interest of the five Chelikani brothers in the aforesaid legacy have been summarised by the Tribunal.
(2.)It is not necessary to consider them over again as it is not disputed that the appellants are the successors-in-interest of the Ghelikani brothers to the said legacy. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that they were creditors of the estate and, therefore, they were entitled to be paid on that basis from and out of the compensation, whereas it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellants were maintenance-holders and, therefore, the Tribunal should value their interest under section 44 (2) of the Act read with the rules framed by the Government in that behalf. Alternatively, it was pressed upon the Tribunal that, whatever might be the character of the future annual payments, so far as the arrears were concerned, the appellants were in the position of creditors.
(3.)The Tribunal negatived both the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and allowed the claims of the appellants both in regard to the arrears of maintenance and future payments on the basis they were maintenance-holders. It is not necessary to notice the other points raised before the Tribunal or the arguments advanced before them as nothing turns upon them in the appeals. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised before us the following three points : (1) Under the aforesaid two wills a heritable and transferable annuity was created in favour of the Chelikani brothers, who had no pre-existing personal right to be maintained under personal law and, therefore, the amounts payable to them or their successors in interest were not amounts payable to persons who were entitled to be maintained out of the estate within the meaning of section 44. (2) Whatever may be the character of the future payments, so far as the arrears accrued were concerned, the appellants are in the position of creditors and, therefore; they will be entitled to be paid only on that basis. (3) There is an obvious mistake in the calculations made in Annexure IV to the judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, countered these arguments by stating that, under the will dated 6th January, 1887, the then proprietor of the Kolanka and Veer'avaram estates made the bequest in favour of his maternal uncles, the Chelikani brothers, with the express object of providing for their maintenance and, if once that was conceded, the fact that the bequest was also heritable or transferable could not make the bequest any the less one made for maintenance. He proceeded to contend that, if once the bequest was for maintenance, there could not be any difference in the character of payments between arrears and future payments.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.