RAJAH VELUGOTI KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA VARU & ORS. versus RAJAH VELUGOTI SARVAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA VARU & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 28-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SS 
RAJAH VELUGOTI KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA 
A 
VARU & ORS. 
v. 
RAJAH VELUGOTI SARVAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA 
Y~CHENDRA VARU & ORS. 
October 28, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH, Y. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B 
lntpartible Estate-Ve11ka1agiri Eslate-llnpartible by cus101n-!11zpartl-
ble Esta~s Act, 1904 including estate in Schedule-Madras Es!ates (Al·o-
lition and Coni·.ersion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 vesting tstate in Go1ern-
1nent-Jt'he1her impartibility continues in 
1c!!.pert of properties no1 
~o 
C 
1•ested-Jn1partible estate, incidents of. 
The appellants filed a suit for partition claiming their share in certain 
properties of the Venkatagiri Estate which did not vest in the State by 
virtue of the Madras E~tates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryot\\'ari) 
Act, ! 948 and in the alternative for maintenance in terms of an agreement 
entered into in 1899. 
Their contention was that the Venkatagiri Estate 
became an impartible estate ·only under the agreement entered into in 
1889 and became a statutory impartible estate by virtue of its incluo;.ion 
in the schedule to tHe Jmpartible Estates Act, 1904 and on the repeal ol 
that enactment by the Abolition Act, 1948. the estate became partible; 
that the properties claimed in t.he suit. though outside the territorial limits 
of the ZaminJari. were held impartible only as appurtenant to the main 
estate and after the impartible character of the main estate \Vas Jost those 
properties became partible. The High Court held that the estate was 
impartihle by custom and was not made impartible for the first time under 
the. agreement of 1889 or by the Acts of 1902 or 1904 and the claim 
for partition was negatived. 
As regards the claim for maintenance the 
court held that a similar claim had been rejected by the judicial com-
mittee as not tenable either under the agreement of 1889 or under Hindu 
law or on the basis of custom. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( i) There is no reason to differ from the finding of the High 
Court that the estate of Venkatagiri was an ancient impartib]e estate by 
custom and was not made impartible for the first time under the agree-
ment of 1889 or by Madras Acts of 1902 or 1904. [100 A] 
Gopala Krishna v. Sarvarna Krishna, 
1955 A.W.R. 590, 
Nargunt_v 
Lutchmeedavanah v. Venganza Naidoo, 9 M.I.A. 66, 
Raja Ras Venkata 
Mahipathy Ran1krishna v. Court of Wards I.L.R. 2 Mad. 283 .and Pusha-
vatlii Viziram Gajapathy Raj Manna v. Pushavathi Vise.nvar, [1964J :! 
S.C.R. 403. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(ii) In relation to Venkatagiri 
Zamindari the 
Madras 
Impartihle 
Estates Act has been repealed so 'far as the Act applied to the 
Estate 
which by opc""tion of s. 3 (b) of the Abolition Act got transferred and 
became vested in the State Government. 
In relation to properties which 
have not become so vesfed in the Government the Madras Impartiole 
Estates Act, 1904 continues to be in force. 
Since the Abolition Act did 
H 
not affect the plaint properties these have continued to be what they were 
at the time of incorporation with the Zamindari. namely. 
the properties 
retain their 
impartible character. The principle 
cossante rat.ione legi.'i 
•
I-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
VELUGOTI VT VELUGOTI (Ramaswami, I.) 
89 
-..•essat ipsa lex has no application in the present case for many 
times 
custom outlives the condition of things which give it birth. 
The iunior 
members of a joint family in the case of ancient impartible joint family 
estate, take no right in the property by birth and, therefore, have no right 
of partition having regard to the nature. of the estate which is impartible. 
[102 D-H, 103 H, 104 E-Fl 
Rai Kishore Singh v. Mst. Gahanabai, A.LR. 1919 P.C. 100, C. /. T. 
J>unjab v. Dewan Krishna Kishore, 68 I.A. 155 and Raja Velugoti v. 
Raja Rajeshwara Rao, 68 I.A. 181, 
(iii) The agreement of 1889 in so far as it relates to payment of main· 
tenance continues to be in force in spite of the. coming into operation 
of the Abolition Act. 
In the absence Of express words_ to the 
effect, it 
would not be right to attribute to the legislature an intention to free the 
properties not transferred to the Government by the operation of s. 3(b) 
of the Act from liability to contribute towards the maintenance of the 
junior members under such a contract or family arrangement. and while 
leaving the land-holder in possession of those other properties, Jimit the 
maintenance holders 
to a share of a fifth of the compensation 
amount. 
[109 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C

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