The order of the Raj Pramukh reducing the allowance was invalid as it was not passed in accordance with the Covenant. The cash grant was property within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and the reduction of the allowance without payment of compensation was unconstitutional.

( 1 ) THIS judgment governs the disposal of another appeal (First Appeal No. 99 of 1957) in which similar questions of law arise for decision.

( 2 ) THE appellant in the, instant case is an adopted son of the Ruler of Nagod. On 7-3-1948, the Ruler granted a cash allowance of Rs. 650/- per month to the appellant for maintenance. The allowance was hereditary. On 1-5-1949 the amount was increased to Rs. 750/ -. Later on 28-10-1949 the allowance was reduced to Rs. 530/- per month by the Raj Pramukh for the lifetime of the appellant only. This was confirmed by the President on 24-9-1951, The appellant brought the present suit claiming that the reduction of his allowance was illegal and ultra vires. He claimed arrears for 3 years and 2 months.

( 3 ) IN the connected appeal, the plaintiff is the brother of the Ruler of Kothi. He claimed that an allowance of Rs. 300/-per month was granted to him by the Ruler on 21-12-1947. The allowance was reduced to Rs. 100/-by the State of Vindhya pradesh, but was later raised by the President to Rs. 150/-per month. The plaintiff claimed that the reduction was ultra vires. He prayed for a declaration that the allowance should be Rs. 300/- and also claimed the arrears at that rate.

( 4 ) THE reply of the State, so far as it is material to the appeals, is that the grant of allowance created only a personal right against the Ruler, it was not in the nature of property and the State could reduce it as it thought fit.

( 5 ) IN the instant case, the lower Court held that the order of the Raj Pramukh, dated 28-10-1949, fixing the allowance at Rs. 530/-per month was valid and the order of the President infixing the allowance at the same figure was a mere repetition of the same order. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. In the connected case the grant of allowance by the Ruler was held binding and it was also held that no reduction could be made after the Constitution. The claim was hence decreed.

( 6 ) WE may briefly refer to the constitutional history of Vindhya Pradesh during the last few years, as this is necessary to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel of both sides. There were 35 princely States in Bundelkhand and baghelkhand prior to 1947. After independence of India, they first acceded to the government of India in certain matters retaining their sovereignty in the remaining matters. Thereafter, they considered it necessary to join together as a union. We give the events below as they happened in chronological order : 13-3-1948 They agreed to unite themselves into one State called the united State of Vindhya Pradesh. 18-3-1948 The Covenant to this effect was formally signed, but the hanging over of the different States was continued for some months. 26-12-1949 As the Union did not work satisfactorily, they decided to dissolve it and handed over the administration to the Government of indian Dominion from 1-1-1950. 1-1-1950 The Government of India took over the Union. 23-1-1950 A notification constituting the new province under a Chief commissioner was issued on 22-1-1950 and the new province came into being from 23-1-1950. 26-1-1950 After the Constitution, Vindhya Pradesh became a Part C state. 1-11-1956 After reorganisation of States, Vindhya Pradesh became a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

( 7 ) WE have already said that the order of the Raj Pramukh in the instant case was passed on 28-10-1949 (Ex. D-2) and the same was later repeated by the president. The order in the connected case reducing the allowance was passed on 12-4-1950 (Ex. D-1 ). It is pertinent to observe that the first order was passed while the State was the United State of Vindhya Pradesh and the second order was passed after Vindhya Pradesh became a Part C State under the Constitution. The trial Court passed contradictory decrees in these two cases, as it considered that the Government of India was bound by the state of facts prevailing immediately before the Constitution. The learned Judge gave no