AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subba Rao, C.J.—These four appeals arise out of the Order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal in O. P. Nos. 2297,2301 and 2310 of 1953 allowing'' die claim in part to the compensation from and out of the interim payment and advance compensation deposited by the Government before the Tribunal in respect of the Venkatagiri Estate.
The following genealogy may be useful to appreciate the facts and the contentions of the parties.
RAJAH VELUGOTI KUMARA YACHENDRA Rajagopala Krishna Miiddukrishnn Govinda Krishna Raja Sri Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Sri Raj''ah Velugoti Venkatasesha Varada Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Venkala Raja Gopal Navanecth.t Krishna Sri Rajah Velugoti Ramalingcswara Gopalakrishna. Yachendra Bahadrit Varu Venkata Krishna Venugopal | (died unmarried) V. Kumara Krishna Illegitimate sons Rajeswara Rao Venugopal Madanagopal Maheswara Rao I. Buchi Rao V. Ramakrishna V. Venkatarajagopala Muvva Gopala (3) Venkatagiri Estate is an ancient palayam geniture. The present Rajah is Sri Sarvogna Kumara and an impartible estate. It was also treated as an Krishna Yachendra shown in the genealogy. With impartible estate by Madras Act 2 of 1904. Success a view to acquire die'' rights of the land-holders in to the estate was governed by die rule of prime permanently settled and certain other estates in the State of Madras and to introduce ryotwari settlement in-such estates, the Madras Legislature passed the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Act 26 of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Venkatagiri Estate was notified under that Act. Pursuant to the provisions of that Act, the Government deposited before the Tribunal Rs. 12,11,419 as advance compensation and Rs. 1,55,119 towards interim payment. Navanoelha Krishna, the 3rd brother of the present Rajah, filed O. P. No. 294 of 1950 claiming a share in that compensation or in the alternative, for distribution between him and the other claimants l/5th of the compensation deposited before the Tribunal and also for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per mensem from 1st August, 1949, till the compensation was finally determined and paid from and out of interim payment made by the Government.
The Rajah filed a counter denying that the Petitioner was entitled to the compensation as a sharer. He alleged that the Petitioner was in possession of valuable properties and that, having regard to the devaluation of the estate under the provisions of the Act, the Petitioner would be entitled to maintenance in accordance with the value of his interest depending upon the proportion which the basic annual sum bore to the actual net income which the Rajah was hitherto deriving from his estate.
The Tribunal negatived the Petitioner''s right to a share but having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the judgment, directed a sum of Rs. 92,284 to be paid to the Petitioner from and out of the advance compensation and Rs. 11,800 from and out of the amount deposited towards interim payment. Those figures were arrived by the Tribunal on the following basis. Rs. 12,11,419 WL:.S the balance of the compensation amount deposited in the Court. One-fifth of that amount was Rs. 2,42,284. For the purpose of easy calculation the ratios of Krishna Bahadur, the 2nd prince and the Petitioner shown in the genealogy were fixed in the 1/5 of the advance compensation and the interim payment at 75:75:92. Therefore, the Petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 92,284 and Rs. 11,800 out of the compensation amount and the interim payment respectively. The Rajah filed S. T. Appeal No. 84 of 1954 against that order complaining that the payment was excessive and Navaneetha Krishna and the 2nd prince filed S. T. Appeals Nos. 131, 132 and 133 of 1954 asking for additional amounts.
Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the, Rajah, contends that the basis adopted by the Tribunal for awarding compensation is fundamentally wrong. He would argue that maintenance-holder under the provisions of the Act would not be entitled to claim anything more than the value of their respective interests, in the estate having regard to the maintenance amounts which they were entitled to receive by custom and the proportion which they tear to the compensation payable under the Act and t that, in so far as the compensation provided for the L land-holder of the estate was meagre and illusory, I and represented a small fraction of the actual value L. of the estate, in working out the value of the intact rest of the maintenance-holders like the 1st applicant due regard has to be had to the proportion p which the compensation payable under the Act bears to the actual value of the estate from and out of which the maintenance* allowances were hitherto being paid.
To illustrate his argument: The net income of the estate was six lakhs. Under the provisions of the Act, the basic annual sum was fixed at Rs. 3,10,387 for the purpose of compensation. The compensation, payable in respect of the estate was determined as 121/2 times the said annual sum. While the income was rupees six lakhs, the Petitioner was receiving a maintenance of Rs. 1,000 a month. As the income was reduced by about half, the rate of maintenance would proportionately be reduced to Rs. 500. On drat basis, the rate of yearly maintenance would be Rs. 6,000.
Capitalising the said income by 121/2 years purchase, the value of die interest of the Petitioner in the estate would be Rs. 6,000 X 12 1/2 equal to Rs. 75,000. As only half the compensation was deposited, his claim could be allowed only to tire extent of Rs. 35,000. He further argued that die Tribunal went wrong in fixing Rs. 2,000 as the rate of monthly maintenance, ignoring the admitted fact that, under the will of the Petitioner''s grandfather, the Petitioner''s maintenance was fixed at only a sum of Rs. 500 a month and also the fact that from 1937 till 1949 he was receiving from the Rajah Rs. 1,000 a month towards maintenance.
Mr. Ramamurthi Ayyar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand contends that a right to maintenance is not an interest in Immovable property, that the value of that right can only be ascertained in the manner prescribed by Section 45 (5) (a) of the Act, that, having regard to the status, the requirements of the Petitioner, the number of his dependants, his delicate health and the present rise in prices of all necessities of life, the Petitioner would be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per month and that, on that basis, his claims should have been allowed in full.
The Act introduced a revolutionary reform in the land tenures of the State. On the date of the notification, all the estates governed by the Act have been transferred to the Government and vested in them free of all encumbrances. All rights and interests created in or over the estate by the land-holders ceased and determined as against the Government. Thereafter the persons, whose rights are terminated,. are entitled only to be paid from and out of the compensation deposited by the Government with the Tribunal. Section 27 provides a machinery for the ascertainment of the basic annual sum in a zamin-dari estate. Section 37 prescribes a sliding scale for ascertaining the total compensation of the zamin-dari estate, among others, having regard to its basic annual sum fixed u/s 27, The Director of Settlements appointed under the Act fixes the compensation on the aforesaid basis and deposits the same before the Tribunal. u/s 50, after the notified date and before the compensation has been finally determined and paid in pursuance of the Act, interim payments shall be made by the Government every first year to principal land-holder and to the other persons referred to in Section 44, Sub-section (1) and the said amount would be deposited before the Tribunal.
under Section 54-A, tire Government shall estimate roughly the amount of the compensation payable im respect of the estate and deposit half of that amount within six months from the notified date in the Office of the-Tribunal as advance payment on account of compensation. It is not, and cannot be, disputed that the amount so ascertained and deposited with the Tribunal would be far less than the capitalised amount of the real annual rental of the estate. In the'' circumstances, the authors of the Act, while terminating the estate, realised that, by so doing, they were destroying, the title of the land-holders, disappointing the hopes of their descendants and the maintenance-holders and upsetting the calculations of the creditOrs. To assuage the difficulties of the persons having interest in an impartible estate, they evolved a scheme of equitable distribution of compensation among the persons so affected. u/s 44, the Tribunal shall apportion the compensation among the principal land-holder and any other persons whose rights or interests in the estate stand transferred to the Government u/s (3) (b) or cease and determine under Clause 3 (c) including persons who are entitled to be maintained from the estate and its income, as far as possible in accordance with the value of their respective interests in the estate. The amount deposited towards interim payment would also be distributed among the persons mentioned in S. 44 (1) in accordance with value of their respective interests.
With effect on and from die notified date, the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904, shall bo deemed to have been repealed in its application to the estate and, in the case of impartible estates, which had to be regarded as the property of a joint Hindu family for the purpose of ascertaining the succession thereto immediately before the notified date, the compensation payable to the persons interested in the estate is regulated by the .provisions of Section 45. The Act, therefore, lays down a scheme providing the manner of ascertaining the compensation and distributing the same among the persons having interest in an impartible estate before die notified date.
The aggregate compensation payable to the principal land-holder and his legitimate sons, grandsons and great-grandsons in the male line, who are called the sharers and other persons who immediately before the notified date were entitled to maintenance out of the estate and its income under the provisions of the Impartible Estates Act or otherwise (who are called maintenance-holders) would first be ascertained by the Tribunal. The Tribunal then determines the amount payable to the creditors entitled to have their debts paid from and out of the assets of the estate. The remainder of the aggregate compensation would be divisible among the sharers and maintenance-holders.
Out of the aggregate compensation, I lie compensation payable to the maintenance-holders shall be determined subject to the upper limit of 1/5 of the remainder. The compensation payable to the maintenance-holders shall be determined having regard to the compensation payable in respect of the estate, the number of persons to be maintained out of the estate, the nearness of relationship of the person claiming to be maintained, the other sources of income of the claimant and the circumstances of the family of the claimant. To fix the amount of compensation without exceeding the upper limit and for distributing the same amount to the maintenance-holders, ft is enabled to re-open arrangements already made in respect of maintenance, whether by decree or order of Court, award, or other instrument in writing or contract or family arrangement.
The balance of the aggregate compensation will then be distributed among the sharers. It is, therefore, clear that, in the case of an impartible estate, the compensation payable to the claimants is ascertained in accordance with the value of their respective interests in the estate and that, in the case of maintenance-holders, their interests are valued in the manner prescribed u/s 45 (5) (a). To accept the argument of Mr. Vedantachari, in toto, viz., that the interests of the maintenance-holders should be valued only on the basis of the proportion which the compensation payable under the Act bears to the actual value of die estate from and out of which maintenance allowances were hitherto being paid, is to ignore the express provisions of Section 45 (5) (a).
At the same time, the considerations mentioned in Section 45 (5) (a) are not exhaustive. The Tribunal should have regard, as far as possible, to the consideration mentioned therein. The section does not preclude die Tribunal from taking note of the relevant considerations other than those mentioned in that Sub-section. One of the relevant considerations obviously would be the fact that the value of the estate has been considerably reduced by the notional figures adopted under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the rate at which maintenance was payable to a person on the basis of the real value of the property should either be proportionately or considerably reduced. That would also be a relevant circumstance in fixing the maintenance along with other considerations detailed in the Sub-section.
The decisions piled by the learned Counsel for the Rajah do not really help us in deciding the questions raised in this case. In Hirdey Narain v. Mrs. Powell, ILK 35 All 9 where land which was taken up under the Land Acquisition Act belonged to two or more persons the nature of whose interest therein differed, it was held that the compensation allotted therefore must be apportioned according to the value of the interest of each person having rights therein so far as such value can be ascertained. So too, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Surendra Nath Sarkar and Others Vs. Pyari Charan Law and Others, , held that, as between lessor and lessee, the acquisition should not place either party in a better or worse position than he was before the acquisition. The learned Judge observed at p. 742:
The acquisition transforms the property into a certain sum or money, but, the rights of the parties relatively to this sum ought to be the same as they had with reference to the property. Where a properly is subject to a lease, theoretically speaking, the total compensation for the property should be the sum-total of the compensation payable in respect of the interests of lessor and lessee. If the total compensation, is not however arrived at by separately calculating the interests of lessor and lessee it seems to us that the amount should be divided between them in such proportions as would represent the value of their respective ''interests.
The meaning of the word ''apportionment'' given in standard dictionaries like Bouviers'' Law Dictionary, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and Wharton''s Law Lexicon have been cited. ''Appointment'' has been defined as a division or distribution of the subject-matter in proportionate shares [the act of distributing or allotting'' in proper shares ''and the division of whole into parts. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions and the moaning given in the dictionaries it is contended that (lie entire estate should be evaluated as a whole and the compensation apportioned in accordance with the value of the separate interests. The Legislature recognised that principle in Section 44 of the Act when it slated that the compensation would be determined in accordance with the value of their respective interests in the estate. But the Legislature itself prescribed the method of ascertaining such interest in the subsequent sections and it is not permissible for the Court to depart from the method prescribed.
Nor did the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Vonicayarnma v. Sm-yarao Bahadur, 1956 AP WR 37 : AIR 1957 AP 215 of which one of us was a party lay clown anything different from that which we have as pressed in this ease. There, the Division Bench was considering the question whether persons claiming under a Will providing for the payment of a heritable and transferable annuity were entitled to claim the amounts as maintenance-holders. It was found that the suecessors-in-intercst of the persons in whose favour the annuity was created had to be paid compensation capitalising their maintenance amount at 20 years'' purchase in .addition to the arrears payable to then) and that there would hardly be any amount left to the land-holders after they met their other commitments. In that context, I observed at p. 40 (of Andhra WR): (at p. 221 of AIR) thus:
To avoid this anomaly, the Legislature rightly provided for the equitable distribution of the compensation to all persons such as owners, sharers and other maintenance-holders, i.e., all the persons who have an interest in the estate or its income. There is also a sound principle behind this. When subordinate interests are carved out of the parent estate and when the parent estate dwindles in value, the subordinate interests are proportionately made to abate.
These observations would not indicate that the interests of the maintenance-holders be valued de hors the provisions of Section 45 (5). The observations should be read only as one of the considerations to be borne in mind in ascertaining die compensation payable to maintenance-holders.
Equally unhelpful are the decisions cited for the Petitioner. Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Ayyar, J., held in Sri Ravu Janardhana Krishna Ranga Rao Bahadur Vs. The State of Madras and Others, , that a junior member entitled to maintenance out of an impartible estate has no right to the estate or the compensation paid on Government taking over tho estate under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act& that the right to maintenance is not attributable to any present interest in the estate. At p. 246 (of Mad LJ): (at p. 187 of AIR), the learned Chief Justice observed:
In view of the above pronouncements of the Privy Council learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not succeed in convincing us that the Petitioner had any right to the impartible estate or the compensation paid on its acquisition. The Petitioner undoubtedly is entitled to maintenance both according to the custom and according to the statutory provisions embodied in Section 9, etc., of the Madras Impartible Estates Act. But his right to maintenance is not attributable to any present interest in the estate.
Another Divlgiuu Bench of the Madias High Court, of which one of us was a member, described the right to maintenance of a junior member in Senthathikalai Pandiya Chinnathambiar and Others Vs. Varaguna Rama Pandia Chinnathambiar and Another, at p. 390 (of Mad LJ): (at p. 8 of AIR thus:
The right of junior members of the family for maintenance is governed by custom and is not based upon any right or interest in the property as co-owners.
It may, therefore, be accepted that the right to maintenance of a junior member is a customary right but not a present interest in the estate. This distinction between his right to maintenance and a present interest in the estate on which Mr. Ramamurthi Ayyar based his argument to counter that of Mr. Vedantachari, is not of much avail for whether it is a right or an interest in the estate, Section 44 in clear terms says that tire rights or interests of the persons, who are entitled to be maintained from the estate and its income, shall be ascertained in accordance with die value of their respective interests in the ''estate. The rights of the maintenance-holders, Therefore, will have to be ascertained in accordance with the value of their respective interests in the estate. But, as we have already indicated that right, though it may not be an interest in praescnti in the estate, has to be determined in the manner prescribed u/s 45 (5) of the Act.
A Division Bench of this Court in Raja Gopala Krishna v. Raja Sarvagna Krishna, 1955 AP LT (Civ) 411 : AIR 1955 AP 264 (F) , accepted the same interpretation we have now placed on Section 45 of the Act. At p. 429 (of Andhra LT): (at p. 272 of AIR), Chandra Reddi, J., who delivered judgment on behalf of the Bench in dealing with the argument of Mr. Vedantachari observed:
His formula which is mechanical one is inconsistent with the conceptions underlying Sub-sections. (3) to (5) which direct the Tribunal to bear in mind the considerations pointed out above. How could they be reconciled to the mode of apportionment suggested by Mr. Vedantachari Under Sub-section (5) of Section 45, some discretion is vested in the Tribunal, of course a judicial one in determining the amount payable to each of die maintenance-holders and it is not cut and dry process which according to the counsel for the Appellants is enacted in Section 44 (1) of Act.
The observations indicate that the learned Judges rejected the argument of Mr. Vedantachari that the right of the maintenance-holder should be valued having regard only to the proportion which the compensation payable under the Act bore to the actual value of the estate from and out of which the maintenance allowances were hitherto being paid. But that consideration, though not a sole criterion, may also enter the basis of calculation u/s 45 (5) of the Act. Indeed the first consideration in Section 45 (5), viz., compensation payable in respect of the estate, is comprehensive enough to take in the circumstance that the estate, by the application of the provisions of the Act, has appreciably been reduced in value.
Nor can we agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the upper limit of ''1/5 of the remainder'' in Section 45 (4) of the Act from, and out; of.
which the compensation is payable to the maintenance holders is 1/5 of the total compensation to bo deposited by the Government before the Tribunal without excluding the amount Government is entitled to deduct from the amount to be deposited in respect of its dues.
The total compensation payable was Rs. 38,79,837-8-0 and half that amount would come to R Section 19,39,918-12-0. Government deducted therefrom a sum of Rs. 7,28,500 being half of the arrears due to the Government in respect of peishkush and other charges and deposited only the balance of Rs. 12,11, 419. The argument of the learned Counsel is that, u/s 45 (4) of the Act, maintenance-holders could be paid up to the limit of R Section 19,39,918-12-0 whereas the Tribunal accepted Rs. 12,11,419 as the upper limit to which the maintenance-holders were entitled. It is, therefore, said that the compensation paid to the Petitioner may still further be enhanced without infringing the limitation placed upon the amount ear-marked for the maintenance-holders by the Legislature. Apart from the fact that increasing the upper limit does not necessarily entitle a maintenance-holder to a higher compensation, wo are not satisfied that the argument is borne out by the provisions of the Act. Section 39 enables the Director to determine the basic annual sum in respect of an estate and also the total compensation payable in respect of it.
u/s 41 (1) of the Act, Government shall deposit in the Office of the Tribunal compensation in respect of each estate as finally determined u/s 39. The proviso to that section authorizes the Government to deduct from the amount to be deposited moneys if any due to them (i) in respect of peishkush or (ii) in respect of any claim which was secured immediately before the notified date by a mortgage of, or a charge on, the estate or any portion thereof. This section, therefore, enables the Government to deduct their dues at the source itself and only deposit the balance.
The provisions of Section 45 (2) lay down the manner of determining the claims of the sharers and the maintenance-holders. The aggregate compensation payable to the persons considered as a group and described in Section 45 (2) (a) and (b) is first ascertained. Under Sub-section (3), the amount due to the creditors, who are entitled to be paid out of the assets of to estate, he is ascertained and the remainder of the aggregate compensation shall be divisible among the sharers and maintenance-holders. The portion of the aggregate condensation payable to the maintenance-holders is then determined and that amount shall not exceed 1/5 of the remainder referred to in Sub-section (3).
The question is: what is the remainder referred to in Sub-section (3)? The remainder is the balance of the aggregate compensation after deducting the debts payable from and out of the assets of the impartible estate. The convenient mode of collection of the Government dues prescribed by Section 41 (1) will not make the said debts any the less debts payable from and out of the assets of the impartible estate within the meaning of SECTION 45 (3) of the Act. The remainder, therefore, mentioned in that clause must be the remainder after the entire dues payable to the creditors including Government from and out of the assets of the impartible estate has been paid. This conclusion, the learned Counsel argues, would lead to the anomaly of the principal land-holder who, neglected to pay the peishkush and other charges payable to the Government taking advantage of; his own default at the expense of the maintenance-holderSection It may be so. The same consideration would equally apply in the case of other debts for a defaulting principal land-holder would have the debts payable out of the assets of the estate, paid out of the compensation at the expense of the maintenance-holders. we have already indicated, the Act introduced a revolutionary change and it had taken into consideration only the circumstances existing on the date of the notification without any regard to the previous good or bad management of the estate.
The next question is what is the compensation payable to the Petitioner in respect of his right to maintenance, or, to state it differently, what is the value to be placed upon his right to maintenance. As we have indicated, in evaluating the right the considerations enumerated in Section 45 (5) have to be borne in mind along with other relevant circumstanceSection Prior to the present Act, the Rajah was in sole enjoyment of the estate and was entitled to the entire income subject to the rights of maintenance conferred on specified junior members of the family u/s 9 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). u/s 10 of that Act, in determining the amount of maintenance payable to any of the persons mentioned in SECTION 9, practically the same considerations mentioned in SECTION 45 (5) were to be borne in mind. Instead of the compensation payable in respect of the estate, the net income of the estate afforded a basis for fixing the compensation. The net income of the Venkatagiri estate is admitted to be six lakhSection The persons entitled to maintenance u/s 9 of Act II of 1904 were the Rajah''s two sons, his two brothers and the branch of Kumara Krishna. The sons were not entitled to any present right to partition or possession of any part of the estate. But, by reason of the Act, both the income and the capitalised value of the estate have been appreciably reduced.
The income was reduced from R Section 6 lakhs to R Section 3,10,387 and the number of years purchase was fixed at 12-1/2 years, while the market value must have been about 20 years purchase of the net income. While the sons were entitled only to maintenance, now under the Act they are given an equal share in the compensation with him. The maintenance-holders continued to be the same. It is, therefore, manifest that the compensation deposited represents a notional value of the estate but not its market value. This circumstance cannot be ignored in fixing the maintenance of the claimant.
There is no change in the number of persons to be maintained out of the estate as existed prior to the Act and subsequent to it. Indeed, the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the principal land-holder, who were only entitled to maintenance prior to the Act, became sharers in the compensation.
There is evidence to show that the claim ant has other property of his own though tire parties differ on the value of his separate share. It appears that the grandfather of the present Rajah, the Raja Gopalakrishna Yachendra Bahadur, executed a Will dated 22nd September 1910, bequeathing all the immovable property acquired by him during his lifetime to his three grandsons i.e., the present Rajah, the Petitioner and Venkata Rajagopala in three equal shares and he also gave specific jewels of considerable value to his three grandsons absolutely. On 19& January 193C, an agreement was executed between (he i; i/atees and their father under which hi full .settlement and iii quit of the claims of the said legatees each of then) took a set of properties and the proper-tics mentioned in Sch. C to the object ions filed by the Rajah were allotted to Navaneetha Krishna. He also received the jewels allotted to him.
Navaneetha Krishna was allotted the amount due under two mortgage bonds dated 25th July 1914 and 28th September 1920. The suit filed to enforce those mortgages was compromised in 1941 and Navaneetha obtained, in addition to the cash payment of one lakh, lands of the value of seven lakhs and 1/4 share in Gollaprolu estate in the East Godavari District. That apart, under the settlement dated 30th September 1925, the 1st applicant acquired the group of villages known as Akkurthi estate which the Respondent values at three lakhs. He has also a claim for contribution for a largo sum in respect of Kala-hasti estate which is the subject-matter of O. S. No. 1 of 1946.
Navaneetha executed a registered deed of trust dated 4th June 1937, whereunder Bexwada Rama-chandra Reddi of Buchireddipalem and Capt. R. Vcn-katarao, L.M-.S., were constituted trustees in respect of some of his properties and the trustees were also paying him every month a sum of Rs. 1,000 from and out of the trust properties. The first applicant does not deny the existence of the said properties but only says that the valuation given by the Rn;ah was high. The papers filed in this ease therefore disclose that Navaneetha and his family possessed considerable property yielding substantial income.
There is evidence in this case to show the rate of maintenance'' received by the maintenance-holders till the estate was abolished. K\\. A-I dated 8th April 1899, was the agreement ciilesvd into between Rajagopala Krishna, the grandlalher of tho present Rajah and his three brothers. It was agreed that the estate was an. impartible estate descendable, by the rule of primogeniture and that each of the branches of the other brothers should get maintenance allowances at the rate of Rs. 1,00.0 every month. Ex. A-2 dated 22nd September 1910, was the Will executed by Rajagopala Krishna bequeathing his proper-lies to the various legatees. In that Will, he had given, various properties to his grandsons.
In regard to the two grandsons other than ''''the Rajah, he provided that they should get an allowance of Rs. 500 per month from the Samasthanam. He pointed out in the Will, that high allowances were fixed for the younger brothers in order to get rid of the troubles, etc., arising from suits relating to portions of the Samasthanam. It is not disputed that, after the Rajah succeeded to the estate, the- first applicant was being paid at the rate of Rs. 1,000 a month from 1937 up to August 1949, towards his allowance.
There is nothing on record to disclose that, during this long period of time, the first applicant had ''ever raised any dispute about the adequacy of the allowance. On 22nd October 1949, after the Act was passed, Navaneetha Krishna wrote a letter to Rajah complaining that he was finding it extremely difficult to make both ends meet, with the allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem out of the income of the impartible estate, though it was supplemented by Rs. 1,000 .which was being sent to him out of the trust estate, nd that the said allowance for three months was not tent to him. Even in this letter Navaneetha did not claim that lie was entitled to more than Rs. 1,000 per month out of the income of the impartible estate. Ex. A-ll is the later dated 31st January 1950, written by Navancetha''s son to the Rajah complaining that the monthly allowance from the Samasthanam was stopped. Even in that letter, it was not mentioned that the allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month paid out of the income of the estate was not sufficient or reasonable. He only asked for an increase in regard to the payment from the trust property. Ex. A-18, the cash chitta, and the evidence of the employees in the Ven-katagiri estate clearly establish that only Rs. 1,000 per month was paid towards his allowance.
Learned Counsel for Navaneetha contends that the sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid not as maintenance but only as pocket-money; the account books filed in the ease Clearly and unambiguously make a distinction between allowances paid to the maintenance-holders and pocket-money given to the members of the family living with the Rajah like his mother, sons and others. See Exs. A-18, A-30, A-31, A-38 and A-39. To illustrate: Ex. A-30, the Palace Chitta from 22nd December 1937 to 28th February 1938, contains the following entry at p. 137:
No. 1 allowances to Sri Rajah Navaneetha Krishna Yaehendrala-varu. Debit for Icrediting in the chitta of Sri Navaneetha Krishna Yachcndralavaru the allowance of Rs. 1,000 payable for the month of September, 1937 ... ... Rs. 1,000.
Exhibit A-31, the Palace Chitta from 1st March 1938 to 24th April 1938, contains the following-entries among others:
31st March, 1938. 285 No. II Pocket-moneys Order 11. Rani Saheba, 286. Do. II. II. Dowager Maharani-''31st March, 1938. 287 No. II Pocket-moneys Sri Rajya Lakshmi-ammagaru Debit Rs. 100 for the month of November, 1937. 11th April, 193S. 290 No. II Pocket-moneys H.T1. Rajah Sahib. No. I allowances H. II. Ill Prince.
These items bring out the distinction between pocket-money and allowances, pocket-money being the amount given to the Rajah and the members of his family like his mother and wife for their private expense and allowance being that given to the persons who are entitled to maintenance. Exhibit A-34 is the Palace Cash Chitta from 1st August 1938 to 10th October 1938; this gives the headings for budget purposes. Allowances are classified as No. 1 and pocket-moneys as No. 2. It is not necessary to consider all the accounts as it is admitted that all of them contain similar entries. But, it is contended that an allowance is not maintenance but is pocket-money. That an allowance is distinguished from pocket-money is obvious from the accounts themselves.
In regard to the allowances, the accounts show that all the expenditure incurred on behalf of Navaneetha and others entitled to allowances were all debited against the credit of Rs. 1,000 and there are entries even showing that a sum of Rs. 200 was debited against allowances for using the car of the estate. Learned Counsel argues that the Rajah was giving them many amenities and that Rs. 1,000 was, therefore, in the nature of pocket-money. The fact that the Rajah when he had the estate was treating his brothers generously or that he was receiving them as his guests when they came to Madras or Bangalore or that had been helping thorn on the occasion of the marriages of children of his brothers could only be ascribed to the generosity of the Rajah and to the wholesome traditions obtaining in the family rather than any right vested in his brothers.
Nor has the argument that the first Appellant accepted only Rs. 1,000 per month as allowance on the accepted basis of other generous gifts from the Rajah any basis on the material placed before: us. Indeed, after the Rajah stopped paying allowances Navaneetha did not question the rate of maintenance payable out of the income of the estate till the present stage. The word allowance is synonymous with maintenance and that word presumably was considered by the members of the family, as disclosed in the agreements and the Will of the ancestors of the present Rajah, as more dignified and consistent with the status and respectability of the family. We, therefore, hold that the first applicant has been receiving only a sum of Rs. 1,000 without any objection from 1937 a.s maintenance for his branch.
The next question is whether there is any change in the circumstances how to enhance the rate of maintenance in favour of Navaneetha. Learned Counsel for him contends that Navanec.lha belongs to a respectable zamindari family, diat he has a daughter & 3 sons, that ho is a chronic invalid. Thalth are only two other maintenance-holders, that the compensation payable is a large amount of 38 lakhs, that the family requires Rs. 3,500 a month to provide lor its reasonable amenities and that, therefore, the Tribunal should have accepted his claim in too. Bn'' as we have, already pointed mit, all the aforesaid circumstances are not new but have been already in existence for many years.
It is argued that there is an abnormal rise in prices and that what was sufficient in 1937, would not be sufficient for maintenance in 1956. But the first applicant was receiving maintenance at the same rate till 1949 and there is no evidence to show that between 1949 and the date of the application the prices of the necessary commodities have risen. That apart, this argument works both ways. If the rise in prices has affected maintenances-holders, it has also affected the holder of the estate. On the other hand, the estate has disappeared and the capitalised value of the income is far less than its market value.
It is brought to our notice that the Maharaja-kumar. i.e., the second prince has agreed to lake Rs. 1,50,000 as capitalised value of his maintenance and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 75,000 was given to him from and out of the half compensation deposited before the Tribunal. It is suggested that there was some fraud in that arrangement and that some secret payment was made to the Maharajakumar. There is no basis for this argument except the fact that the Rajah and the Maharajakumar married sisters. But the present litigation shows they were not on good terms till the matter was settled. The agreement was obviously made on the basis of the maintenance allowance received by him all these years. Tho branch of Kuma-ta Krishna was also given a similar amount on the foot of Ex. A-l. We do not, therefore, see any justification for holding that the first applicant would be entitled to higher maintenance than he was voluntarily taking throughout a long period of time from 19,37.
If so, what is the capitalised value of the first applicant''s right to the maintenance? When the statute has provided 12-1/2 years'' purchase for giving compensation to the Rajah, it is reasonable that the samo multiple should be applied even to the subordinate interests or the right carved out of that estate. On that basis, that capitajised value of the first applicant''s right to maintenance would be Rs. 12,000 x 12-1/2, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000. On this basis he would be entitled to Rs. 75,000 out of the compensation amount deposited before the Tribunal.
As regards the compensation payable to the first applicant out of the interim payment made, we think the same basis should apply. Applying that basis, the Petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 9,620 out of the amount deposited towards interim payment.
In the result, the decree of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. S. T. A. No. 84 of 1954 is allowed in part. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs. S. T. A. Nos. 131, 132 and 133 of 1954 are dismissed with costs.