Back
Supreme Court Of India
RAJA V. V. MUVVA GOPALA KRISHNA YACHENDRA
Versus
Rajah V. V. S. K. Krishna Yachendra
Decided On : November 19, 1962
MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - ACT XXVI OF 1948 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 8, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 54-A, 55 - ADVANCE COMPENSATION - INTERIM PAYMENTS - APPORTIONMENT - MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE - SHARERS - CREDITORS - IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - VALIDITY OF SECTION 45 - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 31B OF THE CONSTITUTION - NINTH SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The Venkatagiri Estate in North Arcot was an ancient impartible estate. In 1889, two of the brothers expressed a desire for the partition of the estate. The then Rajah 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 the 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 to the Nawabs government which was in power previously that for this reason this Venkatagiri Samasthanam is not at all partible that the immovable properties relating thereto and also other immovable properties acquired with the income of the said Samasthanam are not liable for partition that this is his opinion in regard to immovable properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that 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. The attack on the validity of s. 45 of the Act on 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 therefore hold that the provisions of s. 45 of the Act are not void.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948) is ultra vires the State Legislature? 2. Whether the provisions of section 45 of the Act are void? 3. Whether the appellants are entitled to 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? 4. On what principle should the amounts of maintenance payable to the persons entitled to it be calculated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. 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. 2. The attack on the validity of s. 45 of the Act on 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 therefore hold that the provisions of s. 45 of the Act are not void. 3. The appellants do not come under any of the persons mentioned in this clause and therefore they cannot get, compensation as `sharers`. 4. There is nothing in this Ss. 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.
Final Decision: All the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL,
( 1 ) 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. , 7/09/1949.
( 2 ) THE Act received the assent of the governor General on 2/04/1949 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 S. came into force with respect to the Venkatagiri Estate from the notified date. With effect from the notified date, i. e. , 7/09/1949, the entire Venkatagiri Estate stood transferred to the government and vested in it by reason of s. 3 (b) of the Act.
( 3 ) SECTION 39 provides for the Director of Settlements 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 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.
( 4 ) IN respect of the Venkatagiri Estate, the government deposited Rs. 12,11,419. 00 as and by way of advance payment of compensation, after deducting Rs. 7,28,500. 00 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. 00 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.
( 5 ) TO understand the various claims for payment out of these deposits, the following genealogical table will be helpful:
( 6 ) 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. Thedocument 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 o
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
