STATE OF MYSORE Vs. ANANT VINAYAK PATWARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Treaty of Gulgallee with Jamkhadi dated 6-6-1819 by the Hon'ble Mr. Elphinston, Governor of Bombay on behalf of the East India Company one of the terms which were granted to Gopalarao Jamkandikar was regarding the terms which he held from the Government of His Highness the Peshwa, for the payment of his contingent (apparently army) of his personal allowance. It stated that he was to continue all allowances and no complaints on this head were to be suffered to reach the Government (East India Company). The allowance to respondent's ancestor was one such allowance. This allowance seems to have amounted to a sum of Rupees 2010/- minus a sum of Rupees 240/- being the commutation amount as shown in Petha Khata Wahi Extract of 1942-43. That extract also shows that this grant was permanent. But in 1944 the then ruler of Jamkhandi seems to have converted this allowance to one for life. After the Jamkhandi State was merged in the State of Bombay, the Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955. The respondent filed an application on 21-7-1956 under S. 17 of that Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi claiming that the cahs allowance payable was both permanent and hereditary but that the learnt that the ruler of Jamkhandi had passed an order that the said cash allowance be continued till his (applicant's) lifetime when the same was continued to him after the death of his father. He mentioned that he moved the Rajasaheb by an application which was not finally disposed of. He, however, claimed that he would be entitled to Rs. 21,000/- at 7 times of the cash allowance on them basis that it was Rs. 3,000/- a year and permanent or in the alternative to Rs. 9,000/- being three times the cash allowance on the basis that it was payable for life.

(2.) We are of opinion that clearly the decision of the Mysore High Court is wrong. In ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum (AIR 1955 SC 352) this Court stated the constitutional position of the Nizam of Hyderabad in these words:

(3.) There is only one small point which has got to be mentioned. The compensation allowed was three times the cash allowance. As already mentioned the Petha Khata Wahi extract shows the allowance at Rupees 2010-00 minus Rs. 240.00 being commutation amount. These allowances being service allowances, the deduction is for the payment to the person who was doing the service in place of the cash allowance holder. That is why what was being paid to the respondent year after year was the cash allowance minus commutation amount. The Mysore High Court was, therefore,wrong in holding that this sum of Rs. 240 cannot be deducted from the cash allowance while calculating the compensation payable to the respondent.