Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER:
RAJA MUVVA GOPALAKRISHNAYACHENDRA AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJA V. V. SARVAGNA KRISHNA YACHENDRA AND OTHERS (And
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/11/1962
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
BENCH:
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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
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
afterdeducting 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.
JUDGMENT:
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 119-
121 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
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
---------------------------------------------------
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
| |
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
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 as-
certaining the succession thereto immediately
before the notified date, the following pro-
visions 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;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
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 com-
pensation aforesaid payable to the
maintenanceholders 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 sub-
section (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 clai-
mant; 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 otherinstrument in
writing or contract or family arrangement.
(6) The balance of the aggregate compen-
sation 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
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
maintenanceholders 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 maintenanceholders, 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 sub-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
s. (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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
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 land-
lord 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
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 provi-
sions. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
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.
302