Back
1960 Supreme(SC) 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Gajendragadkar, C. Shah, J.
Sri Yarlagadda Venkata Ramalinga Prasad Bahadur Zamindar - Appellant
Versus
Srimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda Sivaram Prasad Bahadur Zamindar - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 572, 573 of 1962
Decided On : 21-9-1964
Appeals against the Judgment of the High Court of A.P. in A.S. No. 315 of 1954
Decided On : 18-07-1960
For the Appellant :Mr. T.V.R. Tatachari, Advocate.
For the Appellants :M/s. B. Manawaia Chowdary and P. Ram Reddy, Advocates.
1. A family arrangement must be duly stamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to be admissible in evidence. 2. A junior member of an impartible estate is entitled to maintenance under section 9 of the Impartible Estates Act, 1904.
Headnote:
IMPARTIBLE ESTATES ACT - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - MAINTENANCE - STAMP DUTY - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9 AND 10 OF THE IMPARTIBLE ESTATES ACT, 1904.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a junior member of an impartible estate, filed a suit for maintenance against the defendant, the holder of the estate. The plaintiff claimed maintenance on the grounds of joint family property, custom, and the Madras Impartible Estates (Second Amendment) Act, 1934. The defendant pleaded that the impartible estate had ceased to be joint family property due to a family arrangement and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the certified copies of the memorandum relied upon by the defendant were inadmissible in evidence as the originals were not duly stamped and that there was no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's father had on behalf of himself and his branch relinquished the right of survivorship to the estate. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance as a junior member under section 9 of the Impartible Estates Act, 1904, and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the suit till September 7, 1949.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's father had renounced the right of his branch to claim the estate by survivorship through a family arrangement. 2. Whether the impartible estate had become the separate property of the defendant. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance by virtue of any custom. 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance under the provisions of the Madras Impartible Estates (Second Amendment) Act, 1934. 5. The quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the certified copies of the memorandum relied upon by the defendant were inadmissible in evidence as the originals were not duly stamped and that there was no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's father had on behalf of himself and his branch relinquished the right of survivorship to the estate. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance as a junior member under section 9 of the Impartible Estates Act, 1904, and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the suit till September 7, 1949.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to costs proportionate to his success in this Court and in the High Court. There was no order as to costs in the appeal filed by the defendant.
JUDGMENT :
C. Shah, J.
These two cross appeals arise out of the decree in suit No. 88 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam filed by Sri Yarlagadda Venkata Ramalinga Prasad Bahadur Zamindar who will hereinafter be called 'the plaintiff', against Srimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda Sivaram Prasad Bahadur Zamindar who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendant'. The following genealogy shows the relationship between the parties to this litigation:
Chek
2. Sri Raja Ankineedu Prasad Bahadur I great grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant was possessed of an extension Zimindari known as Challa-palli or Devarakota estate. By the rule of primogeniture the estate devolved on his death upon his eldest son Sri Mallikarjuna Prasad. Durga Prasad the younger son then instituted suit No. 18 of 1880 for partition of the Zamindari and separate possession of his share. The litigation was carried to the Privy Council and it was ultimately decided by the Judicial Committee on May 1, 1890 that the estate of Devarakota was impartible and descends to the eldest son of the last owner. The Judgement of the Privy Council is reported in Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna v. Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga, LR 17 I.A 134 Thereafter the two younger brothers of Mallikarjuna Prasad, Durga Prasad and Venkata Ramalinga Prasad, sued Mallikarjuna Prasad separately by suits Nos. 10 & 13 of 1891 on the file of the District Court, Krishna for maintenance. This litigation was also carried to the Privy Council and a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month was awarded to each of the two claimants. The Judgment of Privy Council is reported in Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayudu, L.R. 27 I.A. 151.
3. After the death of Mallikarjuna Prasad Nayadu in 1921, four suits-being suits Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33 of 1925 on the file on the District Court, Krishna Masulipatam were filed by the grandsons of the common ancestor against Ankineedu Prasad II - father of the defendant-claiming maintenance out of the impartible estate of Devarakota. One of the plaintiff's in those suits was Anantha Sridharam-father of the plaintiff. The suits were withdrawn. Ankineedu Prasad II-father of the defendant-died in 1928. The plaintiff having been denied a right to maintenance instituted suit No. 88 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Masulipatam for a declaration that the plaintiff-had a right to be maintained out of the impartible estate of Devarakota and its accretions and that the defendant who was the holder of the impartible estate was bound to pay to the plaintiff maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claim in the suit was based on three grounds: (a) that the Devarakota estate was joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant; (b) that there exists a custom or usage in the family entitling the plaintiff, though not the son of the last holder to maintenance; and (c) that the plaintiff-is entitled to maintenance under the provisions of the Madras Impartible Estates (Second Amendment) Act, 12 of 1934.
4. The defendant pleaded that the impartible estate and its accretions had ceased to be joint family property of the plaintiff and the family of the defendant, since the plaintiff's father as representing his branch of the family and the defendant as representing the estate entered into a family arrangement which was recorded in suit No. 31 of 1925 on the file of the District Court, Krishna as a result of which the plaintiff's father had renounced and surrendered the right of succession of the members of his branch to the estate, and the plaintiff could not on that account claim to be maintained out of the impartible estate. It was also contended by the defendant that the claim of the plaintiff under the provisions of the Madras Impartible Estates (Second Amendment) Act 12 of 1934 was not maintainable as the estate of Devarakota had ceased to be joint family property, and that
