Back
1921 Supreme(SC) 34
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
MUSTI VENKATA JAGANNADHA - Appellant
Versus
MUSTI VEERABHADRAYYA - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Apr. 21. 1921.
Solicitor for appellant: Douglas Grant.
Solicitors for respondent: Barrow, Rogers & Nevill.
Karnam service lands are impartible emoluments attached to the office, not joint family property. Enfranchisement of such lands converts them into the absolute separate property of the office-holder, regardless of any hereditary expectation of family members.
Headnote:(A) State Acts regarding service lands and Inam Rules - Enfranchisement of service lands - Nature of emoluments attached to the office of a village accountant - Whether such lands constitute joint family property or are impartible appurtenances of the office - It is held that lands comprising the emoluments of a village accountant are attached to the office and not the family; upon removal from office, the holder loses all right and title to such lands. (Paras 21-24)
(B) Enfranchisement of service inams - Effect of title deed granting enfranchisement to the office-holder - When service lands are freed from service and confirmed to the holder and their representatives to hold or dispose of as they think proper, such grant is absolute and does not enure for the benefit of the joint family. (Paras 16-17, 38)
(C) Distinction between different tenures - The legal principles applicable to hereditary estates of petty chieftains are distinct from those applicable to service emoluments of village accountants; the former are treated as hereditary estates, whereas the latter are personal appointments. (Paras 31-35)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sued the appellant for a one-half share of lands by partition. The lands had been emoluments attached to the office of a village accountant and were later enfranchised in the name of the appellant's father. It was admitted that a partition of all other divisible family properties had occurred between the appellant's father and the respondent prior to the enfranchisement of the service lands. The respondent contended that the enfranchisement did not destroy the nature of the property as joint family property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lands were not joint family property but were impartible emoluments of the office. The enfranchisement grant was absolute in favor of the appellant's father, and the respondent had no interest in the lands.
Issues: Whether the enfranchisement of service lands in the name of the office-holder enured for the benefit of the joint family or to the individual exclusively.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the office of a village accountant is held by personal appointment and not by hereditary right. Consequently, the lands attached to the office are appurtenances of the office and not family property. Enfranchisement severs the land from the office and converts it into the separate property of the holder. The analogy of hereditary estates of petty chieftains is inapplicable to service emoluments.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
-
inam lands
- enfranchisement
-
inam lands
-
land tenure
-
administrative law
-
public office
- emoluments
-
public office
-
family law
-
joint family property
- partition
-
joint family property
Judgement
Appeal (No. 114 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (February 17, 1918) reversing a decree of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Cocanada.
The respondent, since deceased, sued the appellant, his brother, to recover possession of a one-half share of lands by partition between them. The lands had been held as karnam service lands until enfranchised in 1906. It was admitted that there had been a partition between the brothers before the date of the enfranchisement.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships. It appeared from a report of the Deputy Collector made in connection with the proceedings in 1902 in the Revenue Court that while Subbarayudu was karnam his brothers widow, the plaintiff, and the defendants enjoyed specified parts of the lands under an arrangement to that effect.
The only issue material to this report was “whether the enfranchisement in the name of the defendants father enured for the benefit of the family or to himself exclusively."
The Temporary Subordinate Judge made a decree dismissing the suit. He held upon the authority of Karri Ramayya v. Villoori Jagannadhan (( 1915) I. L. R. 39 M. 930.) that upon enfranchisement karnam service lands devolved upon the enfranchisee and his joint family, but that since there had been a partition the lands in suit enured exclusively to the benefit of the defendant.
The High Court reversed the decision and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a one-half share. The learned judges (Ayling and Seshagiri Ayyar JJ.) said that the question of the effect of the enfranchisement had not been argued before them having regard to the decision of the Court in appeal No. 79 of 1917 (unreported), and that the case relied on by the trial judge was not consistent with his decision.
1921. Feb. 22, 24. Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the appellant. The lands in suit attached to the office of karnam, were resumable by Government, and upon enfranchisement enured to the exclusive benefit of the appellant under the inam title deed Srinivasayyar v. Lakshmamma (( 1883) I. L. R. 7
M. 206.) ; Bada v. Hussu Bhai (( 1883) I. L. R. 7 M. 236.) ; Venkata v. Rama (F. B.) (( 1884) I. L.
R. 8 M. 249 (F. B.)) ; Venkatarayadu v. Venkataramayya (( 1891) I. L. R. 15 M. 284.) ; Dharanipragada Durgamma v. Kadambari Virrazu (( 1897) I. L. R. 21 M. 47.) ; Subbaraya Mudali v. Kamu Chetti . (( 1899) I. L. R. 23 M. 47.) The decision of the Madras High Court in Narayana v. Chengalamma (( 1886) I. L. R. 10 M. 1.) related to an unsettled paleiyam, the lands being held upon a tenure essentially different from that of karnam service lands. The decision was erroneously applied to karnam service lands in Gunnaiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar (( 1902) I. L. R. 26 M. 339.), which has since been approved by a Full Bench in Pingala Lakshmipathi v. Bommireddipalli Chalamayya (( 1907) I. L.
R. 30 M. 434 (F. B.).), and followed in Karri Ramayya v. Villoori Jagannadhan (( 1915) I. L. R. 39 M. 930.) and other cases. The last-named Full Bench decision is in conflict with the Full Bench decision of 1884, and opposed to the current of authority in Madras prior to 1902. The inam title deed makes it clear that the lands were confirmed to the defendants as separate property. But even if the Full Bench decision of 1907 was rightly decided the deceased respondent had no interest in the lands, since there was a partition between him and his brother, the appellant, before the enfranchisement. . It cannot be said that the service lands were left for subsequent division because they were in their nature impartible ; there was at that time a complete partition. This being the case the Madras decisions since 1892 above referred to are not applicable. Whatever permissive interest was allowed by Subbarayudu to the deceased respondent in the karnam lands cannot avail as against the appellant who was individually appointed in 1902. Further the appellant has been in adverse possession since 1902 under the
