# YACHENDRA AND OTHERS v. RAJA V. V. SARVAGNA

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 280
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/yachendra-and-others-v-raja-v-v-sarvagna-2770
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Estates
Abolition-Apportionment
of
compensationLegi&lative competence-Entries 9, 21,
List 2, Entry 7, Li"t 3,
Government of India Act, 1935-Madras Estates (Abolition&,
Oonve,.ion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXVI of 1948),
... 3,41,45,54.
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 appCill against the decision of the
Tribunal it was contended that-(!) 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 ii became the property of the joint family ; (3) s. 45 was a
law altering the rights of distribution of property amorni; the
members of a joint family and wa• beyond the legislative
compctenc;e of the State Legislature ; (4) the law was discriminatory; (5) the appellants were not maintenance holders
but =diton; (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.
Htld, that the lint qu.stion 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.
Htld, further, that in respect of such compensation the
proportion of distribution could only be in accordance with
the provision' of sub-s. 2 of s. 45 of the Act by which alone the
appellants were entitled to claim advance compensation.
·~
:j
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
281
(2} that the legidation was not one in respect of wills,
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 Constitmion 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 after deducting the liabilities mentioned in the proviso
to s. 41 (I} due from the estate to Government from the
amount of compensation for the estate and thats. 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}.
H.U, further, that in the other appeal proportion of
I /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.
•.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION : 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. Gopalakrishnfln, for the appellants (in C.As.Nos. 116-119 of
61) a.1d th'e respondents (in C.As.Nos.120-125 of l961) .
1161
Rafa M .... c.,.l•
k1isll11• f'odUllira
...
11,,jo Y. V. s.,..,..
K "'""" r _,,,,,,,.
1961
R•faJ M .... c.p.lokrisMa Toehmdra
·v.
Rqja Y.Y. SanHlgno
Krishno Toeluadra
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
A. V. Viswanatha Bastri, V. VedantacJiari and
T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondents l to 5 (in C.A.
No.
II6/61) and respondent No.
l
(in C.As.
Nos. ll7-ll9/61) 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
RagAubar Dqol, J.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, j. - These appeals ar

## Text

1'62
N....U.r, II.
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963} SUPP.
RAJA MUVVA GOPALAKRISHNA
YACHENDRA AND OTHERS
v.
RAJA V. V. SARVAGNA
KRISHNA YACHENDRA AND OTHERS
(And Connected Appeals)
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR,
M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, .JJ.)
Estates
Abolition-Apportionment
of
compensationLegi&lative competence-Entries 9, 21,
List 2, Entry 7, Li"t 3,
Government of India Act, 1935-Madras Estates (Abolition&,
Oonve,.ion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXVI of 1948),
... 3,41,45,54.
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 appCill against the decision of the
Tribunal it was contended that-(!) 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 ii became the property of the joint family ; (3) s. 45 was a
law altering the rights of distribution of property amorni; the
members of a joint family and wa• beyond the legislative
compctenc;e of the State Legislature ; (4) the law was discriminatory; (5) the appellants were not maintenance holders
but =diton; (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.
Htld, that the lint qu.stion 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.
Htld, further, that in respect of such compensation the
proportion of distribution could only be in accordance with
the provision' of sub-s. 2 of s. 45 of the Act by which alone the
appellants were entitled to claim advance compensation.
·~
:j
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
281
(2} that the legidation was not one in respect of wills,
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 Constitmion 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 after deducting the liabilities mentioned in the proviso
to s. 41 (I} due from the estate to Government from the
amount of compensation for the estate and thats. 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}.
H.U, further, that in the other appeal proportion of
I /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.
•.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION : 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. Gopalakrishnfln, for the appellants (in C.As.Nos. 116-119 of
61) a.1d th'e respondents (in C.As.Nos.120-125 of l961) .
1161
Rafa M .... c.,.l•
k1isll11• f'odUllira
...
11,,jo Y. V. s.,..,..
K "'""" r _,,,,,,,.
1961
R•faJ M .... c.p.lokrisMa Toehmdra
·v.
Rqja Y.Y. SanHlgno
Krishno Toeluadra
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
A. V. Viswanatha Bastri, V. VedantacJiari and
T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondents l to 5 (in C.A.
No.
II6/61) and respondent No.
l
(in C.As.
Nos. ll7-ll9/61) 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
RagAubar Dqol, J.
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. l 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. l,
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.
.
<
'
,..
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
283
Section 39 provides for the Director of Settle·
ments to 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 provi·
sions 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 all
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 determinat~on 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 detei-mination in these appeals.
~
To understand the. various claims for payment
""I
out of these deposits, the following genealogical table
will be helpful :
1
Rl!iaM .... ~1a
k1isllno r 0&/uai/ro
y,
114ja Y.Y. Sar..,..
K•u""" r .. ,,..,,,.
~OaμJ,J.
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP.
Raja Raja~opala Krishna
Yachendra (Decased)
Govinda lrishna
Yachendra (Dead).
KUMARA YACHENDR:.A ~
Raja Venkata Krishna
Yachendra (Deceased)
Raja V. KumarJKrishna Yachendra
(Petitioner in 0. P. No. 392 of 1950)
Petitioner
I
Raja V. Venkata
Krishana
Yachcndra R. 10
0. P.
Raja V. Rama
Krishna
Yachendra
R. 11 O. P.
No. 382/50
Raja V~kata
Rajagopala
Krishna Yach.
R. 12 0. P.
384/5-0
Raja Sarvaka Kumara
Krishna R·3.
Rajagopala Krishna
R-6.
I
son Unnamed R-8
Raja. Venkata Rajagopala Krishna
.
R-4 O. P. 256/50.
Gopala Krishna Y achendra
R-7.
I
Son Unnamed R-9
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
285
BAHADUR VARU
Raja Muddukrishna
Yachendra
·
(Died Issueless)
Raja Venugopala
Krishna Yachendra
Raja V. Rajjwara Rao
(R-14)
I
1
Raja Maheswara Rao
(R-15)
Raja V. Venkata
Muvva Gopala
Krishna
Yachendra R. 15
0. P. 383/50.
.
I
. .aJa Navaneethu
Krishna R-5 O. P.
•
294/50.
l l
Minor Madanagopal
(R-16 0.P.
No. 385 of 50)
I
. Died
1962
~.M
....
G./Mldrishna
f' aelimdra
v.
~
l'.Y. s., .. ,..
Jrrubo r....,,.
~tbbar D.,.1, J.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1963] SUPP.
The Venkatagiri Estate is an ancient estate in
North Arcot and the necessary history of the Clttate
for the purposes of this case is contained in the document Exhibit A-1 with which we now deal. Kumara
Yac)lendra Bahadur Varu, who tops the genealogical
table noted above and his four sons mentioned therein, are parties to this document. Kumara Yachendra
Bahadur V.aru
represents
also his minor son
Venugopala Krishna Yachendra. The document
recites that the eNtate 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 brothen,
Venkata Krishna Yachendra and Muddukrishna
Y achendra, 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 I mpartible Estate which has to eass
in the order of primogeniture, that at the time
when the Sannad Istimdar Milk was given to
the Raja ofVenkatagiri who was ruling at the
time of the permanent settlement the Peshkush
was settled for this V enkatagiri Samasthanam
on the amount which was. being paid as tribute
and on the entire expenses relating to military
1'
assistance that was to be
rendered to the
Nawab's government which was in power previously that for this reason this Venkatagiri
Samasthanam is not at all partible that the
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
287
immovable properties relating thereto and also
other immovable properties acquired with the
income of the said Samas than am are not liable
for partition that this is his opm10n in regard
to immovable properties ...... "
The father suggested partition of certain other pro·
perty.. The terms. of the final settlement between the
father and his four sons are then noted. They may
be briefly mentioned.
·(I) As the Venkatagiri Estate is an Impartible
Estate and it passes td the eldest son by the rule of
lineal primogeniture, the said Estate, the immovable
properties pertaining to it and other immovable pro·
perties acquired with the income derived from the
said Estate will be enjoyed by the Rajah, the eldest
brother, and after hiS d~ath his sons and grandsons
and so on in succession shall enjoy, always the eldest
male being the heir.
(2) Ifin the line of the said Rajah, his natural
sons or adopted sons do not have male issue and that
line stops short, then the properties shall be en joyed
by him who is the nearest heir and who is also the
eldest to whom the impartible properties of the family
pas~ 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 chese shall be
enjoyed fully and with all powers according to law
aud custom by the respective individuals who would
be ruling at the respective periods subject to the con·
dition of payment of allowances to other members. of
the family from the income derived from thl' Estate
and from the properties in a manner befitting their
respective status.
( 4) The allowances were settled as' fol lows. :
Each of the brothers was to get Rs. l,000/- per.month
1962
Raja Muuo. St/Ml•
krisln111. Y«Matho
..
Raja Y.Y. &tuop•
K1Wuta.T•"'"1•
1962
R•fa M .... Gtpalokrisluu1 r aehnulra
••
R4ja Y. Y. So,oagna
Kris.Ua T0<,,,.d14
Ra1A•6rr D•,;al, J,
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTSfl963] SUPP.
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. 1,009{' 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 wifo 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 adopt·
ed 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 II of 1901) came in to force. The V enka ·
tagiri 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
ascertaioing 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 b~en repealed in its application to the Venkatagiri Estate
\
with effect from the notified date. The expression
'impartible estate' in the Act means an estate governi
ed immediately before the notified date by the
I
Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904 and therefore
I
applies to this estate.
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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
-0r 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 Tribunalshall 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.
It~ 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 ascert11inment 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 ascertaining the succession thereto immediately
before the notified date, the following provisions shall apply.
(2) The Tribunal shall determine the
aggregate .
compensation
payable
to
all
the following persous, considered as a single
group:-
(a) the principal landholder and his legitimate SODB, grandlons, and _great-grandsons m
1'61
1962
~·M
G•f>a/okridna
'¥11ch1ndra
v.
&;. v.v. s ... .,..
Krisha Tadindr1
&,Au6ar Dtqal, J,
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963) SUPP.
the male line Jiving 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 'maintenanceholders'):
Provided that no such maintenance-holder
shall be entitled to any portion of the aggregate
componsation 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; and only
the remainder of the aggregate compensation
shall be divisible among the sharers and main·
tenance·holders as hereinafter provided.
(4) The portion of the aggregate com·
pensation aforesliid 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, a ward or other
instrument in writing or contract or family
arrangement, •uch po~on shall not
c~ceed
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
291
Cilne-fifth of the remainder referred to in subsection (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 pay·
able to the maintenance-holders and apportioning the same .. among theni, 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
claimam.
(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
th~m
on an equitable basis. the Tribunal shall
have power, wherever
neces.~ary, to re-open
any arrangement already made in respect
of maintenance, whether by a decree or
oroer of a: Court, award, or other instrument
in writing; or contract or family arrangement.
(6) The balance of the aggregate compen·
sation shall be ·divided among the ~.
aa if
1962
1961
R•ja Muvva Gop4'a·
krishna r achtntlra
••
Raja V. V. Saroagna
Krishu Taclundra
R1ghuhr Dayal, J.
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
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, filrd Original Petition No.
2300 of 1953 before the Tribunal. Three of his
sons Ramakrislina Yachendra, Rajagopala Krishna
Yachendra and Movva Gopala Krishna Yachendra,
appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 118, 119and116 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 vires the State Legislature and were discriminatory and so void aad that the maintenance amount be
determined with respect to the amount of compensa·
tion 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 hearing 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 R~. 12,11,419/- deposited as adY&nce payment of
compensation and further fixed the ratio of the value
of the interests of Krishna Bahadur and the two
brothers of the preiicnt Rajah, in the I/5th of the
advance compensation, at 76:75:92. Tb!! amounts
I
I
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REi>ORts
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·l 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
Appeii.ls 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 appor·
tioned in accordance with the same principle which
the Tribunal had adopted for the distribution of the
maintenance allowance out of the advance compen·
sation.
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 arocc in 1889,. that impartibility continued under
the Madras Impartible Estates Act of 1904 but ceased
when the Estate vested in the Govcmment on
September 7, _1949;
(2) ln·thcsc circumstances, the compensation
will not bear tile •character of impartibihty. as the
property becamc·,the property of the joint family, the
coparccnary having continued all through ;
1962
Roj• Jl..,•·Go/Ola·
lftW... rocuod••
v.
JIJJja V.V. s...,..a
K Tis6'u1 r .,,,,""
1962
~·M-~a
krls.!u r,,.,,,..,.
"·
a.jaV.V. s.,_,..
KrlsMo1'..-4ta
&,,.I., a.,., I.
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
(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 maintcnanceholders to get I/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 maintenanccholders.
Now, the amount of peishkush payable to the
Govemment had to be deducted out of the amount
to be deposited under sub-s. (I) 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. (I) the
Govemment 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 inentioned in that sub-section as far as possible in accordance with the value of their r~ctive
interests and further provides that the provisions of
ss. 42 to 46 (both inclusive), shall apply tnutatis
mu.tandis 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 pcshkash· remain a liability on the
-
·(
(
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 out~tanding 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 win have to be calculated in the
amount of compensation deposited, i: e., the ainount
of compensation mintllr the permissible deductions
including peshkash.
It is therefore clear that the Tribunal could
not have ignored the deduction of peshk3sh from one
half of the estimated. amount of coinpensation
payable in respect of the estate and had to aY.portion
the amount deposited after taking into· consideration
such deductioq. The contention for the appellants
that the amount !o be co'nsiderc:d for calculating the
share of the mamtenance-holders should have been
taken at Rs, 19,00,000/·0dd and not at Rs.12,00,000/·
Odd, the actual amount of the deposit, is Rot sound.
"l
.
The next que~tion 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 familx. and was paying the sale price in the form
of · an alfowance. 'fliis is· not what the ~ocumcnt
Exhibit A-I recites. There is nothing in it to indicate
1162
//JJfa M..,. Gotola
krisha :r .W.'1•
v.
~v.v.s .... ,..
IriilluuJ :r .,,,,.,,.
Rtvlu.b•r Day•I, J.
11161
1!4aM_G.,._
1:.i.wr-.••
..
~.17.v.s.._
x,;,i..t.-...
11.,,., •• , ~'· 1.
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
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 payaQle to Kishen Chander, fat.her ofKriahnll
Bahadur, is not akin to a debt owed by the J,tajah
to Kishen Chander. It is not made. payable on
llCCOUnt of certain loans taken by the Rajah, but
is payable for manintenance, as the estate being
impartible the other members. of the family had a
reasosable 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 documi:nt A·l in
~
connection with the amount payable to the widows.
I"
A dift'ercnt terminology in referring to the amounfll
to be paid to Kishcn 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 maintena11ce
1
when payable to a female member. Kishen Chander
him~f referred to this amount as maintenance in
earlier proceedings.
We therefore ~old that the view eitpnssed ~
the Courts below with respect to the natiJre of this
allowance is cottect.
·
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 agricul·
tural land; lllJld improvement and agricultural
loans; colonization; Courts ofWards; Encumbered and attached estates ; treasure trove."
The question of succe9ion to the impartible estate
docs 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 cithel' item No. 9 or item No. 21 or
bOth, of List II of the ~cnth Schedule to the
GOvcrnmcnt of India Act, 1935.
.
I
We are of ophiion that the Act d~ not deal
with the su~on to impartible estates. The A::t
acquires the impartible estate whkh vests in the
GovCl'DIJ'lent on th~ notified date. The rights of the
Ian }.holder in the estate cease OD that date. The
Act ¥ as enactc:I bv tli.e State Legislature by virtue of
item No. 9, List If, Semith Sc'iedule to the Gc·vcrnmeot of India Act which reads :
''Compullory aoquiaition of land."
The Act is not tillra ftr'U the State Legislature. 1
Thcattack OD the validity of 1. 45 of the Act on
1961
&jjoM-~
irit)n• r .......
v.
,~,i'i.:::r.
-
I
1912
Rs,ia Mu• .. G.l•la·
•ri1/m11 Y Mflldra
v.
Raj• v. v. s-,.,.
Kris.lao TaeAMilra
Ra1 ..... D•,.I, J,
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i963] SUPP.
the grour;d of its contravening the provisions of
Art. 14 of the Constitution is riot oi>en to the appe·
llants in view of Art. 31B which provides inter alia
that no .1e ol 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 ground
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 men·
tioned at item No. 10 in the Ninth Schedule. We
therefore hold that the provisions of s. 45 of the Act
are not void.
The next question for determination is whc:-ther
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 &tates Act, 1904. We
a1e concerned in these appeals with the distribution of
advance compensation given and interim payments
made in accorc1 ance 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 provisions. 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 tJie question di~tly 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 appe·
llants 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.3are:
"
·x
)I
~·--
--
2 S.C.R.
SUPltEME COUR'f R.El'OR'fS
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 Govemmelit cease and oetermine ;
x
x
x
x
(e) the principal or any other landholder and
any oiher person, whOIC rights stand transferred
under clause (b) or cease and determine under
clause (c), shall be entitled only to such rights
and {>rivileges as att recognized or conferred on
him by or under this Act.
x
x
x
x
(g) any rights and privileges which may have
accrued in the estate, to any penon 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 reco~ or couferred on him
by or 'under this Act. '
The estate was impartib[e up to the moment it
vested in the Government on the notified date. Whatever be the nature of.the com~ation payable, the
distribution of the compensation· between the persons
who had an interest in the estate would be in accortlance with the groviaions of sub-s. (2) of s. 45 which
defines "sharers to be the principal landholder and
his legitimate sons, jVandsons and the great-grandsons
in the main line liVJDg or in the womb on the notified
date, including solll, grandsons and great-grandsons
adopted before such date. The appellants do not
come under any of the persons mentioned in this
1962
116fa~
c.tiol•ltruhna
toJ.Ura
••
IW• v. v. Sat•ai••
Kri1ltn• '1' .Mieir•
R•gbbal DllJ•I, I
1962
R4jo Mugua
G.pa/ol:rilllllo
r..,,,.dra
v.
Ro/a V .V. S.roap .1
Jrrisba r .. 1 .. ,,.
Roghubar Dtl,1td, J,
300 SUPREME COURT REPOR.Ts [1963] SUPP.
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 Jail ..
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 arc
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. l,000/· per month and that therefore
the value of the interest of each brother in the estate
came to about l/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
connectiou with the apportionment of the maintenance allowance applicable to impartible estates arc
to be found in ll. 45 of the Act. Sub-ICCtion (3)
provides for determining the amount to which the
creditors of the holder of the estate arc 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 maintcnance-holdera as a body can
have an amount equal to l/Gth and no more. If the
amount due to them comes to less than I/5th
they will get it as they had been getting in the
past. If
the
a.mount
exceeds
I/5th of the
aforesaid balance, the tribupal has the authority to
re-open any arrangement previousJy made in respect
of maintenance and re-assess the amount to be ~
to eaCh maintenanee·holdcr, keeping in regard the
provisio1111 pf sub-:SCCtion (5). There is nothing in
this · aub'section which autho• the Tribunal·. to '
CalC\llatc the: j:nci\if)DCC of the allloWU· Of comecma·
tloo on the income of.the ~tatc at the tiine it was
fixccl. Even in the present case, the amount ·of
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
301
maintenalic:C allowance was not fixed as a certain
proportion of the net income or the estate but was
fixed, according to document A-1, after c0nsidering
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 arc thcrr.fore of opμiion that the Special
Tribunal had held rightly that the apportionment of
the advance payment cif 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 dis-
~~ all the appeals with costs,. one hearing.fee for
Civil A~als Nos. 116 to 119 and one hcanng fee
for Civll Appeals Nos. 120 to 125.
Appeals dismissed.
1182
Rqja MMOaa OopJ/a•
irislUla r aela11Ulr il
v.
Raja V .V, s.,,.,..
Jrrillma :r.w ...
Rll1/rubor na,.i, J.