STATE OF MYSORE versus ANANT VINAYAK PATWARDHAN

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 26-02-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

460 
STATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
ANANT VINAYAK PATWARDHAN 
Februan 26, 197~ 
[K. K. MA THEW AND A. ALAG!R!SWAMI, JJ. J 
Bo111bay Merged Terri1ories Miscellaneous Alienation Abolition Act, 1955, 
Section 11-Tainat (Casli Allowance) granted to respondents ancestors by 
tlie Pesliwas-Allowa11ce co/ltinued b_v- Ruler of Ja1nkhandi under terms of 
11·eaty with East India Co.-S11bseque111ly Ruler of Jamkl1andi converted allow-
'11lCe to one for Jife-Whetl1er, cash allowance payable was permanent and 
hereditar)'-Comtnutation amount whether deductible fro1n cash allowance for 
paynzerit of comve11sa1ion. 
The respondent's ancestors had been granted a cash allowance called Tainat 
by the Peshwas. After the defeat of the Peshwas by the British, by the Treety 
of Gulgallee with Jamkhandi dated 6-6-1819 by the then Governor of Bomba1 
on behalf of the East lndia Co. one of the terms which were granted to 
Gopalrao Jamkhandikar was rec(\rding the terms which he held from the Govt. 
of His Highness the Pesbwa, for the payment of his contingent (apparently 
army) out of his personal allowance. It stated that he was to continue all 
allowances and no complaints on this befl(l were to be suffered to reach the 
Government. The allowance to the resi,x>nden.t's ancestors was ooe such 
allowance. The extract from the Petha Khata wahi of 1942·43 shows that the 
grant was permanent. 
Bl).t in 1944, the then Ruler of Jamkhandi converted 
the allowance to one for life. 
After the Jamkhandi State was merged in the 
State of Bomba}', the Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Merged Terri· 
torits Miscellaneous Alienation Abolition Act, 19$5. 
The respondent filed an 
application on 21·7·1956 under section 17 of· that Act claiming that the cash 
allowance payable was both pennanent and hereditary but that he learnt that 
the Ruler of Jamkhandi had passed an order that the ·said allowance be 
continued till his (applicant's) life time when the same .was continued to him 
after the death of his father. He mentioned that he had moved the Rajasaheb 
by an application which was not disposed of. HeJ therefore, claimed that he 
wouJd be entitled to seVC}l times the cash allowance, permanent on the basi..'1 
that it was permanent oi ·in the alternative to three tlfncs the ci&)t allowance 
on the basis that it was -payable for life. However, by this time, the Ruler 
of 1 amkhandi was no longer a Ruler and was not in a position to be of any 
assistance to the respondent on the basis of his application. The 
A~istant 
Commissioner of Jamkhandi passed en order granting a sum equal to three 
times the annual sum which the respondent was receiving. 
On appeal by the 
respondent to the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the Ruler of 
Jamkh•ndi had sovereign J)()Wer and was the fountain head of alt sources of 
authority, that is. executive, judiciary and legislature and be could change the 
Tainat cash allowance at his sweet will and pleasure. The Tribunal accordingly 
dismissed the appeal. ne respandent thereupon filed a writ petition before 
the High Court. The High Court directed that a sum equll . to seven times 
the annual ca"h allowance be paid to the resnondent on the basis that the 
grant was hereditary. 
Th~ State Government thcreupan appealed by a special 
leave to this Court . 
. Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) The constitutional position of the Ruler of every one of the 
Jndian States before their integration with the rest of India and comina. into 
force of the Constitution of India was that he enjoyed uncontroUcd sovereign 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
powers and 
there were no 
constitutional limitations 
upon 
his 
authority 
H 
to act in any Of the three capacities of legislature, executive and judiciary. 
It follows, therefore, that if the Ruler of Jamkhandi bad changed the perma· 
nent cash allowance granted to the respondent·~ 11.ncestnrs to one for life, it 
is legally valid and il cannot be questioned. 
[463 A-"Bl 
, 
B 
c 
MYSORE v. A. v. PA TWARDHAN (A lagiriswami, J. ) 
4 61 
Anieer-up-Nissa Btgu1n v. MtJ/1b"otib Begum, A.I.R. 1955_ S.C. 352, relied 
on. 
(II) The Tainat allowance being service allowance the deduction of the 
com.mu'!ltion amount is f9r the payn1ent to tbe person -Who was doing. the 
se~v1ce 10 place of the cash allowance -holder. That is why what was being 
-paid to the respondent year after year was the cash allowance minus the 
commutation amount. 
The commutatiori ariiount is, therefore, deductible from 
the cash allowan

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