(NAGADEVAM) VENKATASUBBAMMA Vs. NAGADEVA VENKATESWARALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for maintenance by a Hindu widow. The plaintiff's late husband and another, deceased father of the defendant, were undivided brothers owning joint family property, moveable and immoveable. The immoveable property consisted of a house and site described in Schedule B to the plaint and the lands described in Schedule A there to which comprised certain purohit service inam lands in Anaparthi village. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit took into account the income from all the items of immoveable property and moveable property and gave a decree to the plaintiff fixing Rs 100 per annum from date of plaint and past maintenance at Rs. 30 per annum for six years prior to suit and provided also for her residence.

(2.) On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the income from service inam lands should not have been taken into consideration but nevertheless considered that the rate of Rs. 100 per annum was a proper rate having regard to the income of the family even excluding the income from Anaparthi lands, but modified his decree by directing that the maintenance should be payable at the rate of Rs. 100 only from 1935, but at the rate of Rs. 72 from date of plaint up to 1935, and confirmed the decree of the District Munsif in other respects save in regard to the date from which the arrears of maintenance had to be paid. Mr. Somasundaram on behalf of the plaintiff raises two contentions before me : (1) the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the income from service inam lands is not sound, (2) the modification in regard to the rate of future maintenance awarded by the District Munsif is wrong. In regard to the first contention, Mr. Somasundaram relied on Section 12 of the Madras Act 3 of 1895 and the Board's standing orders, and submitted that the service inam lands must be treated as partible property though alienation thereof may be forbidden and the income therefrom should be taken into account in fixing the amount of maintenance. He contends that under Section 12 of the Act, as contrasted with Section 10 in case of offices coming under Section 3, Sub-section 4 of the Act the office will be heritable and divisible among the members of the family just like any other property. Section 12 runs as follows: The succession to village offices forming Sub-section (4) in Section 3 shall devolve in accordance with the law or custom applicable thereto at the date on which this Act comes into force.

(3.) The question therefore is what was the law or custom applicable to purohit service inams on the date when Madras Act 3 of 1895 came into force. The origin of village service inams is well known. Grants of lands or assignments of revenue were made to the Revenue Officers of the State as well as to other Public Officers, village servants or individuals employed in conducting the general concerns and administrating to the public wants and necessities of the village communities into which the whole country was divided. The purohit was one of the 12 village officers or servants in a village establishment and functioned in the village, economy. The emoluments of these village officers, whether in the shape of lands or assignments of revenue or of fees, were annexed by the state to the office as remuneration for the performance of public services and intended not to be separable from the office to which they were attached and were not being regarded by the state as private property divisible among the members of the family. It is also known that at the time of the permanent settlement these service inam lands were not included in the assets of the zamindari but were excluded as lakiraj lands and retained at the disposal of the state in the interests of the public service. As the office holders were subjecting these lands to unauthorized alienations, very early steps were taken by the state to prevent their diversion from the purpose for which they were intended and Regn. 6 of 1831 was enacted. The preamble to the regulation and Section 2 indicated the policy of. the state in regard thereto, Section 2 which corresponds to Section 5 of the Madras Act 3 of 1895, was in these terms: It is hereby declared that all emoluments derived from lands, from fees in money or grain, or from other sources, which have been annexed by the state to hereditary village and other offices in the revenue and police departments are inalienable from such offices by mortgage, sale, gift or otherwise; that all transfers which may hereafter be made thereof by the holders of such offices shall be null and void and that such emoluments shall not be liable to attachments or other process in satisfaction of decrees of Court.