Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
V Rao, S Iyengar
The Secretary Of State For India In
Versus
Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja
Decided On : 28 January, 1926
The Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) is a declaratory statute that removes doubts about the extent and operation of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) and clarifies that the Crown is entitled to impose any restrictions, conditions, or limitations in its grants, regardless of their validity under the general law. The Act applies to grants made before and after its enactment, and it is not ultra vires of the Indian Legislature. In this case, the sanad granted by the Government to the plaintiffs' ancestors in 1843 contained a clause restricting alienation without the Government's consent. The plaintiffs argued that this clause was void, but the court held that it was valid and binding on them under the Crown Grants Act. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the grant was not made on behalf of the Crown, as the East India Company, which made the grant, was acting as a trustee for the Crown. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' suit seeking a declaration that the alienation restriction was void and an injunction restraining the Government from withholding consent to alienation should be dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of a village called Ravicherla, filed a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council, seeking a declaration that a clause in the sanad issued by the Government in 1843, restricting alienation of the village without the Government's consent, was void and illegal, and an injunction restraining the Government from withholding consent to alienation. The plaintiffs contended that the village was acquired by their ancestors as a result of a family settlement and not under the grant from the Government, and that the restrictive covenant in the grant was void. The Government contended that the village was granted to the plaintiffs' ancestors by the Government, and that the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) made the restrictive covenant valid and binding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the village was granted to the plaintiffs' ancestors by the Government, and that the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) made the restrictive covenant in the grant valid and binding. The court also held that the Act was not ultra vires of the Indian Legislature and that the grant was made on behalf of the Crown.
Issues: 1. Whether the village of Ravicherla was acquired by the plaintiffs' ancestors as a result of a family settlement or under the grant from the Government. 2. Whether the restrictive covenant in the grant was void and illegal. 3. Whether the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) made the restrictive covenant valid and binding. 4. Whether the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) was ultra vires of the Indian Legislature. 5. Whether the grant was made on behalf of the Crown.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the village was granted to the plaintiffs' ancestors by the Government, based on the documentary evidence, including the sanad issued in 1843, which clearly stated that the Government settled the village upon the plaintiffs' ancestors. 2. The court held that the restrictive covenant in the grant was valid and binding under the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895), which removed doubts about the extent and operation of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) and clarified that the Crown is entitled to impose any restrictions, conditions, or limitations in its grants, regardless of their validity under the general law. 3. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) was ultra vires of the Indian Legislature, holding that the Indian Legislature had the power to make laws for all persons and for all things whatever, within the limits imposed by Parliament, and that the Act did not affect the authority of Parliament or the sovereignty of the Crown. 4. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the grant was not made on behalf of the Crown, as the East India Company, which made the grant, was acting as a trustee for the Crown, holding that the grant was made by an agency exercising delegated sovereign power and was properly described as made on behalf of the supreme sovereign power.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the restrictive covenant in the sanad was valid and binding under the Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895), and that the Government was entitled to withhold consent to alienation of the village.
Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The suit which has led to this appeal relates to a. village known as Ravicherla. It was granted to the ancestors of the plaintiffs by a sanad issued by the Government, dated the 2nd of May, 1843.
2. The grant contains two restrictive clauses one relating to the right of succession which provides that Ravicherla shall be held in perpetuity by the grantees and only such of their heirs could take as the Government might recognise for this purpose from time to time. The second clause, the one with which we are concerned in this appeal, imposes a restriction on the right of alienation, no transfer of the village being valid unless the previous consent of the Government has been obtained authorising such transfer.
3. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the property and the proposed vendee having regard to the second provision referred to above desired, them to obtain the consent of the Government to the sale. The plaintiffs accordingly, requested the Government to give consent, but the Government declined to do so. The suit was then laid against the Secretary of State arid the plaintiffs allege that the village, though it was nominally granted by the Government, was really. acquired as a result of a family settlement, the Government merely acting as mediators in the matter. The plaintiffs, urge that in any event the clause in question, imposing a restraint on alienation is void.
4. The Subordinate Judge, agreeing with the plaintiffs gave them a decree and the Secretary of State has filed this appeal.
The following genealogy will serve to explain the facts of the case: NARAYANA APPA RAO
|
------------------------------------|---------------------------------- ---
| |
|
Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao, Rama Chandra Narasi mha Appa Rao, married Ramanamma Appa Rao, (son by 2nd wife (son by 2nd wife (son by first wife (Subamma) (S ubbamma). Venkamma).
|
|
(Nidadavole or Eliore granted) (NuZvid granted) |-------------|------------ --------|
| | Simhadri Appa Nariah Appa Venkatadri Nariah Appa Rao {adopted) Sobhanadri Appa Rao Rao Rao, (adopted Appa Rao (2nd son of Narasimha to Venkatanarasimha | Appa Rao) Appa Rao). Rajah Parathasa radhi Appa Rao. Pla iatifi No. 1.)
5. The first point to be considered is, was the village granted to the plaintiffs ancestors by the Government or did they acquire it as a result of a family arrangement?
6. The facts that have to be considered in connection with this point mark an important epoch in the history of Nuzvid Zemindari.
7. Prior to 1800 A.D., the estate had been transferred to Government management and in that year the Government determined to restore the zemindari and sanads were issued in 1802 to Venkatanarasimha Appa Rao for the pargannahas in the Ellore Sircar now constituting the Zemindari of Ellore or Nidadavole and to Ramachandra Appa Rao for the pargannahas in the Condapalli Sircar now constituting the Zemindari of Nuzvid. Narasimha Appa Rao, the youngest of the three brothers was then a minor and for some reasons which it is unnecessary to go into, his rights were completely overlooked.
8. This, as might be expected, led to litigation which finally ended in the decree of the Sudder Court in 1819 which upheld the division of the zemindari in 1802 as an act of State with which the Courts of Law would not be justified in interfering. Narasimha then attempted to carry the matter to the Privy Council but his circumstances did not permit him to, do so and he at, that juncture appealed to the Government.
9. The Collector Mr. G.E. Russel on the 16th of March, 1820, wrote to the Board of Revenue pointing out that it would have been more proper if at the division of the zemindari a pension had been secured to the claimant and suggesting that the Government might give him some allowance for his maintenance. The Collector also referred to the fact that Narasimha was head and ears in debt and thus observed:
That the good, intentions of the Government will) therefore, be frustrated unless anything which
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
