HIS HIGHNESS SRI SRI SRI LIEUT-COL SIR RAJAH VELUGOTI GOVINDA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU; PANCHAHAZAR MANSABDAR, K C I E MAHARAJAH SAHIB OF VENKATAGIRI (DEAD); RAJA VELUGOTI SARVAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE D Vs. HIS HIGHNESS SRI SRI SRI LIEUT-COL SIR RAJAH VELUGOTI GOVINDA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU; PANCHAHAZAR MANSABDAR, K C I E MAHARAJAH SAHIB OF VENKATAGIRI (DEAD); RAJA VELUGOTI SARVAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question of right of illegitimate sons of a member of a joint family of the Sudra caste to maintenance out of the family estate when it is impartible. The suit was filed by the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore to establish their status as illegitimate sons of Venugopal, the paternal uncle of the appellant, the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, and the right which they claimed to maintenance out of the Venkatagiri zemindari, the succession to which is governed by the law of primogeniture. They averred that they were entitled under a deed of family settlement, dated the 8 April, 1889, to an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem from the death of their father, which occurred on the 20th June, 1920, but their claim did not rest on the deed alone. They said that irrespective of the deed they were entitled to an allowance for maintenance by custom and also under Hindu Law. The appellant refused to recognise the respondents as the illegitimate sons of his uncle and said that even if they were his sons they were not entitled to be maintained by the estate. The Subordinate Judge held that the respondents had established their status as illegitimate sons of Venugopal and their claim to maintenance from the estate at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per mensem under the deed of the 8 April, 1889, but found against them in so far as their case was based on custom and Hindu Law. The Subordinate Judge also held that the respondents were entitled to an allowance from the date of the death of their father and included in the decree a direction to the appellant to pay the respondents Rs. 1,44,000 as arrears of the allowance. The allowance was made a charge on the estate. The appellant accepts the finding of the trial Court on the question of status, but challenges the decision that they are entitled to maintenance out of the estate.

(2.) The Venkatagiri family belongs to the Velama community, a sub-division of the Sudra caste. In the year 1878, the estate was in the possession of Rajah Velugoti Kumara Yachama, who had seven sons, three of whom had before that year been given in adoption. The relationship of the parties will be more readily appreciated if I reproduce the pedigree set out in the judgment of the lower Court:

(3.) In October, 1878, Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama handed over the estate to his eldest son Rajagopala Krishna. In 1889 Muthukrishna and Venkatakrishna, the two brothers nearest in age to Rajagopalakrishna, claimed that the Venkatagiri zemindari was partible and that the four brothers who remained in the family were each entitled to a fourth share in the family properties. As the result of advice given to them by their father and friends of the family Muttukrishna and Venkatakrishna withdrew the claim to partition and recognised the zemindari to be impartible, but the settlement involved the payment of large sums of money to the three younger brothers, Muttukrishna, Venkatakrishna and Venugopal. Venugopal was then a minor. The terms were embodied in the deed of 8 April, 1889, Venugopal being represented by his father. It will be necessary to refer to certain of the provisions of the deed in detail, but for the purpose of the narrative its terms may be summarised as follows: - (1) The Venkatagiri estate should be treated as impartible and should descend along the eldest line of descent; (2) Muttukrishna, Venkatakrishna and Venugopal should each receive a sum of Rs. 5,81,252-11- 10; (3) Muttukrishna, Venkatakrishna and Venugopal should also receive a sum of Rs. 40,000 each for the purpose of purchasing or building a residence; (4) Venkatakrishna and Venugopal being unmarried should each receive Rs. 15,000 for marriage expenses; (5) Rajagopalakrishna and his successors to the estate should pay to Muttukrishna, Venkatakrishna and Venugopal a sum of Rs. 1,000 each per mensem for life and on their death, a similar amount to their male descendants by way of maintenance, the amount payable to each branch being Rs. 1,000 irrespective of the number of descendants. In 1890 a suit was filed on behalf of Venugopal impeaching the settlement and reiterating the claim that the estate was partible. The suit was filed shortly before Venugopal came of age. On his attaining majority he withdrew the suit and recognised the validity of the deed of the 8 April, 1889. The settlement therefore became final so far as the brothers were concerned.