Point of Law: Illustration of ‘annuity’ is given in Section 173 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which specifies that it is a right to receive a specified sum and not a larger share in income arising from any fund or property.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The State of Kerala and its officials have filed the captioned writ appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 18th June, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 20178 of 2013, whereby Exhibit P7 order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the State Government refusing family and political pension to the legal heirs of Ravi Sharma Raja Krishna Raja, was quashed, and consequential directions were issued.

2. A fascinating and short question emerging for consideration is whether, after the repeal of Article 291 of the Constitution of India dealt with privy purses, the family of the writ petitioner is entitled to get the annuity contemplated under Article 295(2) of the Constitution of India.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

Writ petitioner is a member of Malayala Brahmin family, which possessed sovereign rights over the territory of Paravur, Ernakulam District, which were relinquished in favour of the ruler of Travancore State in the year 939M.E.—corresponding to 764A.D. In consideration of the said relinquishment, the ruler of Travancore State made a grant of annuity to petitioner's family, which originally was payable partly in money and partly in paddy. But, later became payable in money only, the part of which was expected in paddy being commuted into its money value. According to the writ petitioner, in terms of the agreement executed by and between the petitioner's family and the Travancore State, the family was receiving the said payment from 1764 AD onwards. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the annuity granted to the family of the petitioner was treated as a family pension as per a Government Order dated 08.09.1971— Pension Payment Order No.1192, evident from Exhibit P1; and not confined to any person, and therefore, according to the petitioner, it will not be confined to the members then living.

4. It is also the submission of the writ petitioner that the amount of annuity will not be reduced proportionately, whenever there is a death in the family and it is the family that is entitled to get the benefit and not the members. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner is entitled to receive the said benefit from the Government of Kerala by virtue of the constitutional obligation contained under Article 295(2) of the Constitution of India and the eldest member of the family is entitled to collect the same and distribute to all eligible members. Late Sri. Ravi Sharma Raja Krishna Raja was the eldest male member of the family and he died on 19.09.2011. On his death, the petitioner became the eldest member of the family. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application to get pension payment order changed in the name of the petitioner; however, the Government have taken a stand that the benefit granted to the predecessor of the petitioner was a personal right, and the same cannot be given to his successor-in-interest, and it was accordingly that the claim was declined as per Exhibit P7 order.

5. In fact, the issue has a chequered history after the formation of the State. After the formation of the State of Kerala, some dispute arose with respect to the liability of the State to grant the benefit. Thereupon, late Ravi Sharma Raja filed O.S. No. 11 of 1958 against the State of Kerala before the court of Subordinate Judge, Paravur. The said suit was decreed as per judgment dated 20th March, 1959. The State preferred an appeal against the decree before the District Court, Paravur as A.S.No.153 of 1959, which was dismissed by the appellate court.

6. Even though the State filed an appeal, S.A. No. 396 of 1960 before this Court, it was also dismissed as per Exhibit P2 judgment dated 21.10.1960; and the further appeal, A.S. No.71/1961, before a Division Bench of this Court also ended in dismissal as per Exhibit P3 judgement dated 20.09.1962. The said judgement has become final. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the right of the family