Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th February 1965
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
V. T. S. Thyagasundaradoss Thevar and others, Appellants
Versus
V. T. S. Sevuga Pandia Thevar and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. S. Champakesa Iyengar, S. Sankara Iyer and T.V. R. Tatachari, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; M/s. V. Vedantachari, G. Jagannathan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - S. 45 - IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - INTERPRETATION - ZAMINDAR'S WILL - CONSTRUCTION - BEQUEST OF IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - WHETHER IMPARTIBLE ESTATE BECAME JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY IN ZAMINDAR'S HANDS - MADRAS IMPARTIBLE ESTATES ACT, 1904 - S. 4 - EFFECT - DOCTRINE OF BLENDING - APPLICABILITY - COMPENSATION - DISTRIBUTION - PERSONS ENTITLED.
Fact of the Case:
The Zamindar of Seithur Estate, an impartible Estate in Ramanathapuram District, Madras, executed a will in 1895 bequeathing the Estate to his son, the Zamindar. The Government of Madras, under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, abolished the Zamindari and deposited the compensation with the Madras Estates Abolition Tribunal. The Zamindar claimed the entire compensation, while his sons and others claimed a share in the compensation or maintenance under S. 45 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Estate was a joint family property and distributed the compensation among the claimants. The Zamindar appealed to the High Court, which held that the Estate was not an ancestral impartible Estate and that the Zamindar was exclusively entitled to the compensation. The objectors appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the will clearly bequeathed the impartible Estate to the Zamindar, subject to certain obligations, and that there was no basis for the contention that the bequest was impressed with the incidents of an ancestral Estate. The Court also held that the impartible Estate did not become a joint family property in the hands of the Zamindar by virtue of S. 4 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904, as the said section only limited the Zamindar's power to alienate or incur debts in respect of the Estate. The Court further held that there was no evidence to support the contention that the Zamindar had voluntarily thrown the impartible Estate into the common stock with the intention of abandoning all his separate claims upon it. The Court concluded that the impartible Estate was the self-acquired property of the Zamindar and that the appellants were not entitled to share in the compensation under the provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the will executed by the Zamindar bequeathed the impartible Estate to his son absolutely or whether it was impressed with the incidents of an ancestral Estate? 2. Whether the impartible Estate became a joint family property in the hands of the Zamindar by virtue of S. 4 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904? 3. Whether the Zamindar had voluntarily thrown the impartible Estate into the common stock with the intention of abandoning all his separate claims upon it? 4. Whether the appellants were entitled to share in the compensation under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The will clearly bequeathed the impartible Estate to the Zamindar, subject to certain obligations, and there was no basis for the contention that the bequest was impressed with the incidents of an ancestral Estate. 2. Section 4 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904, only limited the Zamindar's power to alienate or incur debts in respect of the Estate and did not convert the self-acquired impartible Estate into a joint family Estate. 3. There was no evidence to support the contention that the Zamindar had voluntarily thrown the impartible Estate into the common stock with the intention of abandoning all his separate claims upon it. 4. The impartible Estate was the self-acquired property of the Zamindar and the appellants were not entitled to share in the compensation under the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. :- V. T. S. Sevuga Pandia Thevar, hereinafter called the Zamindar, was the Zamindar of the erstwhile Estate of Seithur, an impartible Estate, in Ramanathapuram District in the State of Madras. Originally this Zamindari was an ancestral impartible Estate and it continued to be so in the hands of the Zamindar s father, Sundaradoss Thevar. In the year 1895 the said Sundaradoss Thevar executed a will where under he gave this property to his son, the Zamindar. The Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948, hereinafter called the Act, issued a notification dated March 8, 1954, abolishing the said Zamindari. Thereafter, under S.54-A of the Act the State Government deposited a sum of Rs. 68,589 with the Madras Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, hereinafter called the Tribunal. On January 17, 1955, the Zamiadar filed before the Tribunal a claim for the recovery of the said amount under S. 42 of the Act on the ground that the said Estate was his separate property and, therefore, he was entitled to get the entire amount of compensation. His exclusive claim for the entire amount was resisted by his sons and others entitled to maintenance, inter alia, on the ground that the Estate was an ancestral impartible Estate and, therefore, they were also entitled to share in the compensation or to get maintenance, as the case may be, under S. 45 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the said Estate was a joint family property and, therefore, the persons mentioned in S. 45 of the Act were also entitled to a share in the compensation in the manner prescribed thereunder.. Against the order of the Tribunal the Zamindar preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madras making all the objectors respondents to that appeal. That appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court consisting of Rajagopalan and Balakrishna Ayyar, JJ. It held that the said Estate was not an ancestral impartible Estate and that the Zamindar was exclusively entitled to the compensation deposited with the Tribunal. The objectors, by special leave, have preferred the present appeal to this Court.
2. Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastry, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Seither Estate was an ancestral impartible Estate and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly distributed the compensation between the appellants and the Zamindar in terms of 45 of the Act. He elaborated this argument under different heads, which we shall consider seriatim.
3. The first contention of the learned counsel is that under the will Sundaradoss Thevar did not bequeath the said Estate to his son the Zamindar, but the will only contained a recital as to the existence of the said Estate and the fact that it would devolve after his death on his next heir, namely, the Zamindar. It is not disputed that on the date the will was executed the holder of an ancestral impartible Estate could validly bequeath it to whomsoever he liked. The answer to the question raised, therefore, depends purely on the construction of the will.
4. The scheme of the will may briefly be stated thus : The testator at the time of his death owned an ancestral impartible Estate called Seithur Zamin, a self-acquired zamin called the Elumalai Zamin and other movable and immovable properties. He had certain debts and other obligations to discharge; he had to provide, after his death, for the maintenance of his mother, son, daughter, nephew and others. He gave A Schedule property, i.e., the Seithur Zamin, to his son, the Zamindar; B Schedule property, i.e., Elumalai Zamin, to his nephew, C Schedule property, to his daughter; D schedule property, to Challam, who served his wives faithfully, and E Schedule property to Muthiah Bhagavathar. In addition he made other bequests, directed his debts to be paid and other obligations discharged out of his entire Estate. He appointed an Executor to carry out the ter
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
