VENKAYAMMA Vs. RAJA SURYA RAO BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, These are connected appeals filed against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal made in a batch of 38 petitions filed by the appellants claiming payment of the amounts, alleged to be due to them from and out of the compensation amount deposited by the Government in respect of eight estates. These 8 estates originally formed part of the estates of Kolanka and Veeravaram. On 6-1-1887, the then proprietor of the estates Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur executed a will, inter alia, providing for the payment of an annuity of Rs, 3,000/- to his maternal uncle Sri Chelikani Venkatarayanimgaru and his four brothers. After his death, his adopted son Kumara Mahipathi, in his turn, executed a will on 15-12-1897, whereunder he accepted his father's bequest in favour of the Chelikani brothers and specifically provided for paying them in perpetuity a sum of Rs. 3,000/- every year. His widow, after his death, took the present Rajah of Kolanka in 1932 in adoption. The Chelikani brothers divided the annual payment between themselves and each was receiving Rs. 600/- towards his share. Some of the descendants alienated their interest in favour of third parties.

(2.) The successive devolutions of the interest of the five Chelikani brothers in the aforesaid legacy have been summarised by the Tribunal. It is not necessary to consider them over again as it is not disputed that the appellants are the successors-in-interest of the Chelikani brothers to the said legacy. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that they were creditors of the estate and, therefore, they were entitled to be paid on that basis from and out of the compensation, whereas it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellants were maintenance-holders and, therefore, the Tribunal should value their interest under Sec. 44 (2) of the Act read with the rules framed by the Government in that behalf. Alternatively, it was pressed upon the Tribunal that, whatever might be the character of the future annual payments, so far as the arrears were concerned, the appellants were in the position of creditors. The Tribunal negatived both the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and allowed the claims of the appellants both in regard to the arrears of maintenance and future payments on the basis they were maintenance-holders. It is not necessary to notice the other points raised before the Tribunal or the arguments advanced before them as nothing turns upon them in the appeals.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants raised before us the following points: