K APPALARAJU Vs. K RAJAGOPALA NARASARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal by some of the plaintiffs from the judgment of Byers, J., dismissing the suit which they and some others had brought for a share in a certain pension.

(2.) IN 1840, the Government either resumed or bought in the zamindary of Ramachandrapuram for arrears of peishcush. Some time between that year and 1846 the Government made a grant of Rs. 400 per mensem to Ramachandraraju I apparently, solely on compassionate grounds. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the grant was made for the maintenance of the family but the relevant document has not been filed and is not before us. Ramachandra died in 1846 and, about two years later, the Government made a grant of Rs. 700 per month to his eldest son Narasaraju II. Exhibit C which evidences the grant makes it clear that it was "for the support of the family." Out of this allowance Narasaraju II was making grants to his brothers and cousins. It appears that in all he was paying out a sum of Rs. 296 per month but it is not possible to discover any principle on which he apportioned the amount. After Narasaraju's death, a reduced grant at the rate of Rs. 500 per month was made to his eldest son Ramachandraraju II. After his death in 1923 the Government made a further reduced grant at the rate of Rs. 250 per month to defendant 1. The plaintiffs who are distant relations of defendant 1 claimed that they were entitled to share in the allowance granted to defendant 1. They applied to the Collector and obtained from him the necessary certificates under the Pensions Act and instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce the share they claimed. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge took the view that the plaintiffs were entitled to share in the allowance and remanded the suit for ascertaining the amount payable to the plaintiffs. From the order of remand an appeal was preferred to this Court which was heard by Byers, J. He agreed with the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit with costs throughout. The present appeal has been brought against that order.

(3.) IN support of his contention that the plaintiffs are entitled to share in the allowance granted to defendant 1, Mr. Somasundaram, their learned Advocate, first relied on Ex. C, a letter dated 8th January 1848 from the Secretary to the Government of India to the Government of Madras, sanctioning the payment of Rs. 700 to Narasaraju II wherein it is specifically mentioned that the grant was "for the support of the family", the argument by implication being that the grant to defendant 1 must have been on the same terms. He next referred to Ex. N series which show that up to 1930 the grantees of the allowance were in their turn making payments to several of their relations. He next placed some reliance on Ex. D, a letter written on 1st November 1894 by Ramachandraraju II to a relation of his informing him that a sum of Rs. 38 -15 -4 was due to him out of the allowance that was being paid to Narasaraju II and asking him to go over and take the money. The argument of Mr. Somasundaram here was that the letter indicates the consciouness of a legal obligation to make the payment. He also referred to Ex. F dated 10th November 1943, which is an application by defendant 1 to the Government for the grant to him of an allowance, in which he stated as follows : "The petitioner begs to submit that as the family of forty three members which had to be supported at the time of the death of the petitioner's grandfather, Sri Raja Narasaraju Bahadur Garu, now increased to sixty six members any further reduction or extinguishment of the aforesaid pensionary allowance of Rs. 500 which has been found to be hardly adequate for the bare necessities of that large number of dependants thereon will entail greater hardship and misery for no fault of theirs." Mr. Somasundaram finally referred to the unreported decision in K.K. Ramachandra Raju v. K.K. Lakshminarasimha, A.S. No. 232 of 1942 in which a compassionate pension was held to be divisible.