STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAVI SARMA RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit that has led to this Second Appeal, was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Parur, for declaring the right of the plaintiff's family to an annuity, now payable by the defendant, the State of Kerala, which is divided into monthly, half-yearly and yearly instalments as specified in the plaint. The plaintiff is a member of a Malayala Brahmin family, which possessed sovereign rights over the territory of Parur, which were relinquished in favour of the Ruler of Travancore State in the year 939 M. E. corresponding to 1764 A. D. It is the plaintiff's case, that in consideration of this relinquishment, the Ruler of Travancore State, made a grant to the plaintiff's family, of the annuity, which originally was payable partly in money and partly in paddy, but later, was payable in money only, the part which was payable in paddy being commuted into money at the rate of one Travancore Sirkar rupee per parah of paddy, and amounting in the aggregate, to Rs. 4000-12-0 per annum. It was common ground, that the annuity was being paid regularly till September 1, 1956. In March, 1955, the Government of Travancore-Cochin State passed an order, by which the amount of such annuities was to be reduced pro rata at every reduction in the number of members in the concerned family, as by death or otherwise. Several attempts were since made by the plaintiff, for the payment to him of the full amount of the annuity, without reduction, but they did not succeed. Hence the present suit was filed for declaration as aforesaid. The contentions of the defendant, which require to be stated for the disposal of this appeal were, that there is no legal right in the plaintiff or his family to the annuity, which was being paid ex gratia and not in pursuance of any grant, that the defendant is not liable to pay the same, that the Kerala State having come into existence as a result of Acts of State, the municipal courts are precluded from adjudicating with respect to the annuity, and that consequential reliefs not having been prayed for, the suit is barred under the proviso to S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Subordinate Judge, by whom the suit was tried, has held in favour of the plaintiff on these contentions and has decreed the suit in terms of the plaint with costs. The defendant preferred an appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge at Parur, which was out of time, and the petition to condone the delay was dismissed, by the order, which is now sought to be revised in Civil Revision Petition 421 of 1960. The appeal having been dismissed as barred by limitation, the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal. Both in the Civil Revision Petition and in the Second Appeal, the learned Government Pleader pressed, that the delay in preferring the first appeal ought to have been condoned. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent agreed to this, but pressed for a decision of the case on the merits by this Court itself, instead of its being sent back to the lower Court for consideration of the merits.

(2.) The first question for decision is, whether there was a grant of the annuity to the plaintiff's family by the Ruler of Travancore. It was not disputed, that the plaintiff's family possessed sovereign powers over Parur territory. The cession of this territory by the ruling family to the Ruler of Travancore is an admitted historical fact; the document of cession itself is found printed in the Appendix to Volume II of the Travancore State Manual by T. K. Velu Pillai at page 169, and it bears the date, Meenom 2, 939 ME. It is seen from an entry at page 173 of the same Appendix that the Ruler of Travancore made a present of a diamond jewel to the Shri Padmanabhaswamy Temple, on Mithunam 23, 941 ME. The history of Travancore by P. Sankunni Menon contains a record of the historical event, in the following words at page 199: --

(3.) The next question is, whether the Kerala State is liable to make payment and whether the municipal Courts of the State can adjudge its liability. Article III(b) of the Covenant entered into by the Rulers of the former States of Travancore and Cochin, for the formation of the United States of Travancore & Cochin reads:--