RAMACHANDRAN Vs. A.N. KRISHNAMOORTHY IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal. The respondents had purchased three -fourths interest in the life estate -belonging to one Rajagopala Pandarathar the Zamindar of Pudukudi village. The Government had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,614 -67 representing the interim payments for Fasli 1360 to Fasli 1366 both inclusive. The respondent filed the application under Section 50 of the Estates Abolition Act, Madras Act XXVI of 1948, herein referred to as the Act for payment out to him the sum of Rs. 1961 representing three -fourths of Rs. 2614 -67, the amount deposited by the Government. Rajagopala Pandarathar and his son Ramachandran Pandarathar were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 to the petition. The Tribunal took the view that the interim payments by the Government represented the income of the Zamindar and as the respondent had purchased the life interest he was entitled to the entire income. Rajagopala Pandarathar died during the pendency of the petition and the appeal is now preferred.

(2.) THE only point that arises is whether the interim payments deposited by the Government constituted income of the erstwhile holder of the estate. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that under the scheme of the Estates Abolition Act only two payments represent compensation for the taking over of the estate namely, the advance compensation and the final compensation, and that the interim payments are only referable to the income from the estate. He relied upon Sections 39, 54 -A and 50(8) of the Act. He further contended that as Section 50(8) clearly provides that no interim payment shall be deemed to constitute any part of the compensation which the Government are liable to deposit under Section 41(1), the interim payments should be regarded only as representing the income of the estate. He also drew our attention to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 420 of 1962 Raja Rameswar Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, (1963) S.C.J. 456 :, (1963) 2 I.T.J. 241 which arose under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation 1358 -F containing analogous provisions as in the Madras Estates Abolition Act as deciding the point in his favour.

(3.) THE same view was taken regarding the scope of Section 50(8) in a judgment delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice on behalf of the Bench, sitting with Venkataraman, J. in S.T.A. Nos. 21 and 22 of 1960. In that case when a mortgagee creditor applied for payment out of the interim payments, the sons of the Zamindar relying upon Section 50(8) opposed the claim on the ground that interim payments did not represent compensation. In rejecting that argument My Lord the Chief Justice observed as follows: