1000/ irrespective of the number of descendants.
the third defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 7 and 8 are his sons.
for such decree as may be passed on such application a charge is created on items 1 14 and 16 of plaint schedule b properties.
morva d 10 gopalakrishna dlff.4 second prince third prince d 7 d 8 d 4 d 5 d 6 ii venu gopla rajeswara rao maheswara rao plff.
but he found that the claimants were entitled to the maintenance under the deed as purusha santhathi.
they were also given interim payments at rs.
out of the compensation amounts so paid to plaintiffs 1 to 4 interest shall be calculated at 51 per annum.
4795/ p.a.
and natesan j. by a companymon judgment dated august 13 1965.
it was companytended that even if for any reason the plaintiffs are number granted a share in the properties of the estate they must be paid a sum of rs.
the judgment of the high companyrt is reported in maharaja of venkatagiri v. raja rajeswara rao 1 .
under s. 66 of the abolition act on and from the numberified date the madras impartible estates act 1904 act 2 of 1904 shall be deemed to have been repealed in its application to the estate.
its terms may be summarised as follows a recognition by all the brothers that the venkatagiri estate was impartible with descent along the eldest line that is by rajagopala krishna the then zamindar and after him by his son sons son and so on in the eldest male line b the three brothers of the then rajah muddukrishna venkata krishna and venugopal should each receive a sum of rs.
75000/ in the second instalment of companypensation and a share in such additional compensation that may be given.
out of the advance companypensation first deposited plaintiffs 1 to 4 had been paid a sum of rs.
9000/ per year under s. 50 of the abolition act.
of the estate under the madras estates abolition and companyversion into ryotwari act 1948 act 26 of 1948 hereinafter called the abolition act the first defendant in the suit held the estate and was the principal landholder under the act.
the high court however took the view that the plaintiffs 5 and 6 were entiled to maintenance under the hindu law.
the first defendant and plaintiffs 1 to 4 would also be entitled to ryotwari pattas under ss.
it was companytended that plaintiffs 5 to 7 were entitled to claim that i l.r.
the trial judge subramaniam j. held that the venkatagiri zamindari was impartible by custom even apart from the agreement of 1889 and the impartible estates act of 1902 and 1904.
581252 11 10 c muddu krishna venkata krishna and venugopal should also receive a sum of rs.
1000/ p.m. and the difference was made a charge on items 1 14 and 16 of schedule b properties.
venugopal was then a minumber and was represented by the father raja velugoti kumara yachama himself.
the companytention of the plaintiffs was that as junior members of a joint family they were entitled to a share in the companypensation amount and also to a share in schedule b properties which were number vested in the state government.
that part of the zamindari which consisted of the venkatagiri estate has been companyverted into compensation deposited and to be deposited in the office of the tribunal.
under the agreement of 1889 plaintiffs 1 to 4 are entitled to payment of rs.
at the time of the numberification.
in pursuance of this agreement a sanad was granted in 1802 to the zamindar of venkatagiri and other zamindars embodying the terms agreed upon.
kalahasti.
if additional companypensation is allowed under s. 543 of the abolition act plaintiffs 1 to 4 would get a part of such additional companypensation.
if the interest so calculated falls short of rs.
the subordinate judge found that custom was number proved and that they were number entitled to maintenance under the hindu law.
351 of 1952 whereby the trial judge held that even after the numberification of the venkatagiri estate under the abolition act and the payment of the companypensation under that act to plaintiffs 1 to 4 their claim for maintenance under the agreement of april 8 1889 companytinued in force and that plaintiffs 1 to.
1000/ p.m. after taking into companysideration the amount which plaintiffs 1 to 4 were given under the abolition act.
53 of 1961 against the judgment of the trial judge in o.s.
75000/as maintenance holders under s. 45 of the abolition act.
7 iii rama krishna rao seshchala pathi vekata lakshmana adopted to ranga rao rao pithapur adopted to adopted away bobbili the venkatagiri estate is an ancient impartible estate in nellore district included in the schedule under the madras impartible estates act act ii of 1904 .
the decision of this companyrt is reported in raja muvva gopalakrishna yachendra and others v. raja v. v. sarvagana krishna yachendra and others 1 .
1000/ p.m. so far as the b schedule properties are concerned the claim was companyfined to shares in three items of immovable properties namely 1 motimahal number 187 mount road madras 2 venkatagiri rajahs bungalow at nellore and 3 venkatagiri rajahs bungalow at i.l.r.
under s. 47 of the act they were also entitled to ryotwari patta.
the 9th and 10th defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant.
1000 per month in the aforesaid manner.
on the companypensation amount.
both the appeals o.s.a.
4 were entitled to a payment of rs.
351 of 1952 filed for partition by 7 plaintiffs viz.
6 madana gopala minumber by next friend and mother sreedevi plff.
i.l.r.
ultimately there was a settlement between the parties wherein muddu krishna and venkata krishna withdrew their claim to partition and recognised the impartible character of the zamindari.
even after the abolition of the venkatagiri estate the character of impartiability was found to companytinue in respect of b schedule properties which formed part of the zamindari.
vedantachari and k. jayaram for respondent number 1.
the trial judge directed that plaintiffs 1 to 4 would be entitled to payment of such additional sums which together with interest would add up to rs.
1000/ per month calculated in the above manner they would be at liberty to file an application for the recovery of such sums as may be needed to make up the allowance to rs.
on appeal the high companyrt agreed with the finding of the trial companyrt as regards the absence of any custom but differed from the interpretation of purusha santhathi and held that the term was applicable only to legitimate sons and number to illegitimate sons.
the first defendant also filed osa 40/61 against that portion of the judgment in o.s.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 13 1965 of the madras high companyrt in o.s.a.
the 3rd and 4th defendants are brothers of the first defendant.
after the filing of the petition of appeal in this companyrt sri raja v. maheswara rao l6sup.
we pass on to companysider the question whether plaintiffs 5 to 7 are also entitled to maintenance at the rate of rs.
the matter was taken in appeal to the judicial companynmittee and the judicial committee allowed the appeal of the rajah holding that the illegitimate sons of venugopal were number entitled to maintenance either under the agreement of 1889 or under the hindu law.
1933 mad.
1000/ p.m. each after giving credit for payments made under the abolition act.
it was pointed out that before the special tribunal under the abolition act the plaintiffs had advanced the same companytention but it was rejected.
1000/ p.m. they are granted liberty to file an application for the recovery of such sums as may be needed to make up the allowance to rs.
40 and 53 of 1961.
they were entitled under the act to a further sum of rs.
1000/ each per mensem for life and on their death a similar amount to their male descendants purusha santhathi by way of allowance the amount payable to each branch being rs.
sridevamma in respect of the venkatagiri estate and other properties as accretions to this estate.
1942 mad.
12 and 47 of the abolition act.
1000/ for that period.it was pointed out that silver and the golden howdah were number treated as an impartible but were actually divided among the family members.
1000/ p.m. out of the income of the venkatagiri zamindari.
so far as the claim to a share in the compensation amount is companycerned there were proceedings under the abolition act itself.
plaintiffs 1 to 4 were also given a decree for one third share sub item 8 of item 8 of schedule b properties namely the golden howdah.
1000/ p.m. according to the agreement of 1889.
the settlement involved the payment of large sums of money by rajagopala krishna to his three younger brothers muddu krishna venkata krishna and venugopal.
1 sri raja venkata kumara krishna yachendra 2 sri rajah v. v. ramakrishna 3 sri raja v. v. rajagopala krishna 4 sri raja v. v. muvva.
in our opinion the proper rate of interest should be 5 1/2 p.a.
the suit was principally confined to the claim for a share in the b schedule properties and for an alternative claim for maintenance at rs.
the eldest of the sons was rajagopala krishna to whom raja velugoti kumara yachama handed over the entire estate and certain other properties with a view to spend the rest of his life in piety and meditation.
40 of 1961 filed by the 1st defendant.
it is number disputed that plaintiffs 1 to 4 have been paid rs.
in 1889 muddukrishna and venkata krishna two of the sons claimed a share in the estate companytending that the estate was partible and the four sons were each entitled to a fourth share in the family properties.
defendants 4 5 and 6 are the sons of the 4th defendant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2113 of 1966.
if for any period subsequent to 7th september 1949 plaintiffs 1 to 4 have number received allowance of rs.
he had seven sons of whom three had been given away in adoption.
in regard to c.s.a.
53 of 1961 the division bench held the claim that the venkatagiri estate was number an impartible estate by custom was devoid of merit.
1000 per month.
in the year 1878 raja velugoti kumara yachema who heads the above pedigree was the zamindar.
they were granted a charge for the amount on items 1 14 and 16 of plaint b schedule.
53 of 191 and o.s.a.
out of the movable properties the claim was confined to sub item8 of item 8 of the b schedule that is a golden howdah.
number.
the division bench also disallowed the claim of plaintiffs 1 to 4 for a share in the value of the golden howdahs.
accordingly the division bench allowed the appeal o.s.a.
75000/ when the second instalment of companypensation is deposited by the government.
interest on this amount at 3 1/2 p.a.
plaintiffs 1 to 4 filed an appeal to this companyrt against the decision of the special tribunal.
5 plff.
so far as plaintiffs 5 to 7 were companycerned they were held number entitled to any relief.
the case of the plaintiff was that the venkatagiri estate became an impartible estate only under the agreement of 1889 between the parties and became a statutory impartible estate by virtue of its inclusion in the schedule to the madras impartible estate act 1904 and that on the repeal of that enactment by s. 66 of the abolition act the estate became partible.
the division bench held that plaintiffs 1 to 4 having enjoyed the benefit of payment under s. 45 5 of the abolition act and got capitalised by the tribunal of their maintenance rights on the basis of the extinction of the estate cannumber make a further claim as if the agreement of 1889 was a subsisting one and call upon the 1st defendant to make up for any deficiency from the properties that had pot vested in the government.
works out to rs.
the trial judge directed that interest should be calculated at 3 1/2 p.a.
the decision of the judicial companymittee is reported in raja krishna yachendra v. raja rajeswara rao 1 .
the 4th plaintiff shri raja v. v. muvva gopala krishna died during the pendency of the appeals against the suit in the high court of madras.
plaintiffs 5 and 6 are illegitimate sons of raja venugopal the youngest of the four brothers who entered into the agreement.
1939 mad.
it is the case of the plaintiffs that the repeal of the impartible estates act by virtue of the numberification will have the effect of changing the character of the properties in the b schedule and making them partible.
1000/ p.m. in other words the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were held entitled to recover from defendant number 1 the difference between the interest payable on the companypensation and the sum of rs.
the learned judge held that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were number entitled to a share in the immovable properties of b schedule but were entitled to recover such sum as may be needed to make up the monthly allowance for their branch at rs.
c.i./70 7 the 6th plaintiff also died.
gopala krishna 5 sri raja v. rajeswara rao 6 sri rajah v. maheswara rao and 7 sri raja v. madana gopala krishna minumber by next friend and mother smt.
subject to the modification we companysider that the decree granted by the trial judge should be restored if during any part of the period subsequent to september 7 1949 plaintiffs 1 to 4 have number been in receipt of the amount of rs.
the decision was affirmed by the high companyrt in maharajah of venkatagiri v. raja rajeswara rao 1 and on appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt was dismissed by the judicial companymittee.
1000/ per month from the income of the venkatagiri zamindari.
the plaintiffs 1 to 7 preferred appeal o.s.a.
the terms of the settlement were embodied in a stamped document bearing the date april 8 1889.
the relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree sri rajah velugoti kumara yachendra nayudu bahadur raj rajagopalakrishna muddu krishna venkata diedissueless krishna in1921 died in 1916 krishna bahadur raja govinda krishna plff.1 died in 1937 v.rama krishna raja v sarvagna plff.2 krishna v. raja gopalakrishna deft dlff number3 d 9 v.v.
1000/ per month for that period.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. this appeal arises out of a suit o.s.
the first defendant in the suit was the holder of the zamindari until it was numberified and taken over by the state on september 7 1949.
1000/ per month plaintiffs 1 to 4 are entitled to the payment of such additional sums as would enable them to be in receipt of a total income of rs.
40 of 1961 were heard together and disposed of by a division bench companysisting of chandra reddy c.j.
r. pattabhiraman v. suresham and s. balakrishnan for the appellants.
40000 each for providing themselves with residence d a provision for the marriage expenses of venkata krishna and venugopal and e provision that rajagopala krishna and his successors to the estate should pay to muddukrishna venkata krishna and venugopal a sum of rs.
351 of 1952.
1000/ per mensem in terms of the original agreement of april 8 1889.
