RAJA MUVVA GOPALAKRISHNA YACHENDRA AND OTHERS versus RAJA V. V. SARVAGNA KRISHNA YACHENDRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 19-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1'62 
N....U.r, II. 
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963} SUPP. 
RAJA MUVVA GOPALAKRISHNA 
YACHENDRA AND OTHERS 
v. 
RAJA V. V. SARVAGNA 
KRISHNA YACHENDRA AND OTHERS 
(And Connected Appeals) 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, .JJ.) 
Estates 
Abolition-Apportionment 
of 
compensation-
Legi&lative competence-Entries 9, 21, 
List 2, Entry 7, Li"t 3, 
Government of India Act, 1935-Madras Estates (Abolition&, 
Oonve,.ion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Mad. XXVI of 1948), 
... 3,41,45,54. 
Consequent upon the notification 
under the Estates 
Abolition Act, the impartible Estate of Venkatagiri vested in 
the Government and on claims made under s. 41 of the Act, 
the tribunal determined advance compensation to the various 
persons interested. On appCill against the decision of the 
Tribunal it was contended that-(!) the impartible character 
of the Estate ceased when the estate vested in the Government; 
(2) the compensation did not bear the character of impartibility 
as ii became the property of the joint family ; (3) s. 45 was a 
law altering the rights of distribution of property amorni; the 
members of a joint family and wa• beyond the legislative 
compctenc;e of the State Legislature ; (4) the law was discri-
minatory; (5) the appellants were not maintenance holders 
but =diton; (6) the amount of "Paishkush" payable to the 
Government ought not to have been deducted from the 
compensation in calculating the amounts payable to the 
appellants, as the holder of the estate alone was liable to 
pay it. 
Htld, that the lint qu.stion was raised directly in 
another proceeding and it was not necessary to decide it in these 
proceedings which were only in respect of advance compensation. 
Htld, further, that in respect of such compensation the 
proportion of distribution could only be in accordance with 
the provision' of sub-s. 2 of s. 45 of the Act by which alone the 
appellants were entitled to claim advance compensation. 
·~ 
:j 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
281 
(2} that the legidation was not one in respect of wills, 
intestacy and succession, under Entry 7, List 3, but under 
Entry 9 of List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 
(3} that in so far as the legislation came within Art. 31 (B} 
of the Constitmion it was not open to attack as offending 
Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
(4} the appellants were maintenance holders howsoever 
they had been described in the earlier ·documents and that the 
earlier documents did not constitute them as creditors of the 
holders of the estate. 
(5) The distributable compensation could only be arrived 
at after deducting the liabilities mentioned in the proviso 
to s. 41 (I} due from the estate to Government from the 
amount of compensation for the estate and thats. 54 (A} (ii} 
required that half of those liabilities (including Peshkash} due 
to the Government be deducted from half the amount of 
compensation which was to be distributed under s. 54A (i}. 
H.U, further, that in the other appeal proportion of 
I /5th fixed by s. 45 had been rightly applied and that the 
contention that the proportion should have been that which 
the allowances in the earlier documents bore to the total income 
in the year 1889, was not tenable. 
•. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION : Civil Appeals 
' 
.. 
Nos. 116 to 125 of 1961. 
Appeals 
by special leave from the judgment 
and decrees dated March 4, 1955, of the former 
Andhra Pradesh High Court, Guntur, in S. T. Appeals 
Nos. 83,85-88,90,91 and 119-121 of 1954. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney.General for India, 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, V. Sureshan and G. Gopala-
krishnfln, for the appellants (in C.As.Nos. 116-119 of 
61) a.1d th'e respondents (in C.As.Nos.120-125 of l961) . 
1161 
Rafa M .... c.,.l• 
k1isll11• f'odUllira 
... 
11,,jo Y. V. s.,..,.. 
K "'""" r _,,,,,,,. 
1961 
R•faJ M .... c.p.lo-
krisMa Toehmdra 
·v. 
Rqja Y.Y. SanHlgno 
Krishno Toeluadra 
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
A. V. Viswanatha Bastri, V. VedantacJiari and 
T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondents l to 5 (in C.A. 
No. 
II6/61) and respondent No. 
l 
(in C.As. 
Nos. ll7-ll9/61) and the appellants in C.A. Nos.120-
125/61. 
K. Bhimasankaram and P. D. Menon, for res-
pondent No. 2 (in C.A.Nos. 117-119/61). 
1962. November 19. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
RagAubar Dqol, J. 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, j. - These appeals arise out 
of the order of the Tribunal appointed under s. 8 of 
the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into 
Ryotwar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.