AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wallis, C.J.—These are appeals from decrees in two suits which were tried together and disposed of by one judgment, O.S. No. 30 of 1893 and O.S. No. 38 of 1895 in the Subordinate Court of
Ellore re-numbered O.S. Nos. 45 and 56 of 1895 in the District Court of Kistna.
In the first suit the plaintiffs sued at first as members of an undivided family to recover the Zamindari of Munagala from the 1st defendant, the Court of Wards and the 2nd defendant, the alleged adopted
son of the daughter of the last male owner who died in 1854, on the ground that they had wrongfully taken possession of it on the death of the daughter in 1892. At a late stage they filed an additional
written statement in which they claimed no doubt with reference to the plea of limitation: not as members of an undivided family, but on the footing that the joint family had become divided in status, and that
in law all the family properties including this had been all along in their possession as tenants-in-common.
The other suit for practically the same reliefs was filed by the members of the family who claimed to be the next reversioners if the estate was impartible. For some reason which is not explained, possibly
because of deaths among the parties and delay in bringing in the legal representatives, these suits were not disposed of by the District Court until March and April 1904, when the then District Judge
dismissed the first suit without trial on the ground that the plaintiffs had entirely altered their cause of action in the additional written statement, and the second suit because the plaintiff had already claimed
the same relief in the other suit. The judgments of the District Judge in the two suits were set aside and the suits remanded by the High Court by orders of December 1909. Both suits were then tried and
disposed of by Mr. F. A. Coleridge, District Judge of Kistna, by a common judgment on the 14th April 1914, more than twenty years after the filing of the first suit, and the appeals came on for hearing
before us nearly five years after that judgment. The only explanation for these lamentable and almost unprecedented delays at every stage appears to be that many parties died and much time was taken in
bringing in their legal representatives and serving them.
The District Judge tried the case very carefully and dealt fully with the various questions which arise in a very lengthy judgment which might, as he explains, have been shorter if he had not been writing
against time so as to dispose of the case himself instead of leaving it to his successor. He has shown in a careful examination of the evidence that the plaintiffs have endeavoured to support their case by a
number of spurious documents manufactured for the purposes of the case, and I may say at once that his conclusions in this respect have not been disturbed by the arguments addressed to us. I do not
therefore propose to go over this ground again.
There are three important issues in the case, whether the estate is impartible, whether the 2nd defendant was duly adopted by the daughter of the last Zamindar, and whether the suit is barred by
limitation. The District Judge has found on all these points for the defendants and has accordingly dismissed the suits.
The District of Kistna in which Munagala is situated forms part of the Northern Circars, which was at first under the Hindu Rajas, and then formed part of the Kingdom of Golconda which was
conquered by Aurungazebe at the close of the seventeenth century. Subsequently the Circars were included in the Subbah of the Deccan and were governed by the Nizam until the middle of the eighteenth
century, when they passed for a time into the hands of the French. Then after Col. Forde''s successful operations, Lord Clive obtained a Sannad from the Imperial Court at Delhi assigning them to the East
India Company.
Mr. James Grant in his Political Survey of the Northern Circars, which was submitted to Warren Hastings in 1784 and is re-printed as an appendix to the Fifth Report, Vol. 3, p. 1 of the new Calcutta
Edition, gives a full account of the condition of the country from the time of the Golconda dynasty which was overthrown by Aurungazebe in 1687. There is no reason to doubt that at the time the District
or Pergunah of Munagala was in the possession of the last survivor of a very ancient Reddi family who held it as deshmuk or Chauduri under the ruling power. Mr. Grant''s view as to the position of these
deshmuks and Chauduris is very similar to that taken by Mr. Stirling in 1821 in his report on Cuttack on which the Privy Council based their judgment in Ramakanta Das Mohapatra v. Shamannad Das
Mohapatra I.L.R (1909) Cal. 590. They were generally in the position of renters who in consideration of the revenue, military and police services, were allowed certain Savaram or rent free lands in
different parts of the district together with a fixed share of the collections. Sometimes the hereditary renter might be the head of a once ruling family, and even when he was not, the office tended to become
hereditary in the family of the holder, but the tenure was liable to be put an end to by the ruling power. The fact that the office was hereditary and held for some generations by the senior member of the
family was held insufficient in the case last mentioned to prove a special custom of impartibility among the descendants of the holder with whom the British Government effected a settlement so as to
derogate from the statutory rule that in the absence of custom, the estate was to be descendible according to the ordinary rules of inheritance.
Their Lordships observed: ""They show, indeed, that the office of Chowdhuri was held for many generations, by a member of the family and that to the holder of that office certain lands were assigned as
a part of his remuneration. But the grant was of an office only, and to an individual, to be held during good behaviour. It was clearly revocable at the pleasure of the sovereign, by whom it might be
conferred, not merely on the eldest son, but upon any member of the. family, or, indeed, on anybody. In the nature of things, the office could only be held by one person at a time, and as Mr. Stirling points
out, such offices were "" generally heritable""; but these considerations, though they may suggest a presumption, are not sufficient to establish a right. For this purpose, the evidence must be clear and
unambiguous, which, in this case, it is not. Besides, it is hard to see how a family custom of succession to an estate not absolutely owned by the family could ever have existed "" ILR 36 Cal. 590, 598.
This decision which was based on the facts of the particular case must however be applied with caution, because a decision of this Court based on very similar grounds as regards the Zamindari of
Devarakota, which is also in the Kistna District, was reversed by the Privy Council in Mallikarjuna v. Durga I.L.R (1890) Mad. 406. Their Lordships considered it unnecessary to go back further than
1766, the date of the cession to the East India Company. They referred to the fact that before the permanent settlement the rights of the Zamindar had been recognised by the Company as opposed to the
view of the High Court that changes of possession of the Zamindari were simply acts of administration, and later in their judgment they laid stress on the fact that the permanent sannad issued under Reg.
XXV of 1802 was a recognition of such hereditary right.
They said that Ankadu, the grantee, ""thus acquired a permanent property in the land at a fixed assessment, but there was no grant of the land, and the rule of succession to it was not altered. The Estate
remained entire, and there is no evidence of any intention of the Government to alter the nature of the tenure"". In effect they held that, even before the permanent settlement the Zamindars had an hereditary
estate to which the custom of succession by primogeniture could and did attach.
From 1766 the proprietary right of the Zamindar of Munagala does not seem to have been questioned. The name of Keesara Lutchey is to be found in the list of Zamindars in the Northern Circars in
the Minutes of Consultation of the Government of Fort Saint George for 1766, Exhibit X. The Company no doubt dealt with her as the mother and guardian of the minor Keesara Venkataramanah, the
fourth Zamindar in the pedigree Al, to whom the cowle, Exhibit D, wag granted. The fact that the Company at the outset dealt with the mother of the minor head of the family is a strong evidence both of
their recognition of his proprietary interests and of the custom of impartibility in the family. Exhibit Dl, dated 12-4-1771 was granted in 1771 by the Governor of Fort Saint George fixing the assessment for
three years for the Purgunah of Munagala then in his possession. In Exhibit X (a) which is an extract from the Minutes of Consultation of 31-8-1774, he is included in a list of Zamindars with whom tribute
had been settled. Exhibit A is a pedigree of the ""Keesarvar family of Moonagalah Purgunah"" presented to Government at the time of the permanent settlement, Venkata Narasimha aged 44 is shown as the
present Desmook"". Exhibit XII, dated 21-1-1803 is a letter from the Collector reporting his death and stating that he had left a son Kodandaramiah, "" to whose succession to his father''s estate I perceive
no objection"". The letter referred to the receipt of a permanent cowle or sanad for delivery to the Munagala Zamindar, and reported the Zamindar''s death in order that the necessary alteration might be
made. The son''s name was accordingly substituted in the permanent sunnad, Exhibit XI, which recognised him as Zamindar and authorised him "" to hold in perpetuity to your heirs, successors and assigns
at the permanent assessment herein named the Zamindary of Moonagalah"". As observed in the Devarakota case, there was no fresh grant but the proprietory right of the Zamindar was recognised and
confirmed at a fixed assessment. In my opinion, in this, as in the Devarakota case there was before the permanent settlement an hereditary property in this Zamindari to which the custom of primogeniture
could attach, and I think that on this ground the case is distinguishable from the more recent decision in Ramakanta Das Mohapatra v. Shamanand Das (1909) I.L.R.36 C.590 (P.C.). If it were to be held
that prior to the permanent settlement the Zamindars were only Desmooks with no proprietory interest in the Zamindari and that the sannad bestowed the Zamindari as private property on Kodandaramiah
and his heirs descendible according to the ordinary rules of succession and therefore partible, this would be fatal to the claims of the plaintiffs who are not descended from him but claim as his collaterals. In
that case the Zamindari was his self-acquisition, and the 2nd defendant if his adoption be proved, would be entitled to succeed as daughter''s son of the last male owner. On the other hand, if the sunnad
only confirmed a previously existing proprietory interest, then it must be held on the authority of Stree Rajah Yanumula Venkayamah v. Stree Rajah Yanumula Boochia Venkondora 13 M.I.A. 333 that the
sunnad enured for the benefit of the family according to their interests, and did not deprive them of a right of partition if the estate was joint and partible. There is no reason to doubt that in the seventeenth
century Munagala was held by the head for the time being of an ancient family as Desmook or Chowdari under the Golconda kings, and it may possibly be that the family itself was descended from former
rulers. According to the tradition, which there is no reason to doubt, on the death of the last of the Reddis shortly before 1693 his widowed daughter-in-law secured it for her own family known as the
Keesara family to which the parties belong. Exhibit IX of the year 1693, not 1725 as the District Judge supposed, is a written summons in Persian and Telugu. The Persian part bears the seal of servant of
the Emperor Aurangazebe or Alamgir (the name appears in the Telugu portion as Buda Chidanand) and calls on Keesara Mukund, the common ancestor of the parties, as Zamindar, to present himself with
an armed force. The Telugu part is to the same effect but states that the Sardar is coming to punish the rebel Asway Row. This document appears to prove that Mukund was the recognised Zamindar of
the District in 1693. According to the plaintiffs he was the second of the three brothers to whom their sister, the widowed daughter-in-law of the last Reddi, transferred half the Zamindari in 1690. The
other half, they state, had been alienated by the last Reddi himself in 1684 and was bought back by the three brothers in 1705. The Zamindari was thus the joint acquisition of the three brothers and always
remained joint family property. The originals of these deeds are not forthcoming but Exhibit BB series, a list of useful documents connected with the estate in the possession of the Court of Wards in 1893,
includes such documents which are not now forthcoming. As secondary evidence, the plaintiffs produced from the Oriental Manuscripts Library a book of transcriptions from manuscripts deposited in the
collection which included these three documents and also an incomplete kyfiat, Exhibit C3, forwarding them to some authority, probably the Collector as agent of the Court of Wards. The contents show
that the kyfiat, if genuine, was written between 1816, when an amin was put in possession of the Estate and 1818 when it was handed over to the Ward on his attaining majority. The District Judge was
under the impression that the manuscripts copied into his book came from the well known Mackenzie collection, but this is negatived by the date. Col. Mackenzie, as appears from the introduction to the
printed catalogue of his manuscripts in Madras, left the Northern Circars, where he had collected manuscripts, in 1807. He afterwards served in the expedition to Java, and made the collections there
which are now in the India Office. He did not return to the Circars, and cannot have collected these documents. It has therefore not been explained how the copies which were transcribed into the book
produced got into the Oriental Manuscripts Library here. Exhibit C. of the year 1687 purports to be a transfer by the last Reddi of half of his Chowdari Mirasi of the Munagala pur-gunah for pags. 500 and
provides that the transferees Siddalooru Venganna and Ramanna and their posterity are to discharge in perpetuity the office of Chowduri. It appears that in the Bombay Presidency lands attached as
endowments to offices and the offices themselves were often the subject of transfer, see Adrishappa v. Gurushidappa (1880) I.L.R.4 Bom. 494(P.C.) but it is not shown that it was so on this side of India,
where the general rule is that both the offices and the endowments are inalienable. It is not suggested that the transferees got into office under this grant, Exhibit IX shows that Mukunda was the Zamindar in
1693 and Exhibit C. on which the plaintiffs rely is a copy of a deed of gift of 1690 by the daughter-in-law reciting that the Desaigiriship was in her enjoyment and transferring it to her three brothers
Keesara Peddi Reddi, Keesara Mukunda, and Royappah.
It is not easy to reconcile this with the summons of 1693, Exhibit IX, which shows that the second of the three brothers was the recognised Zamindar although according to C-2 the eldest brother
Peddi Reddi survived until 1705. C-2 which is dated in that year purports to be a transfer by the representatives of Siddalooru Venganna and Ramanna to the three brothers Peddi Reddi, Mukunda, and
Royappah of the share of the Chowdariship of Munagala which Venganna and Ramanna had purchased, not as in C-1 from the last Reddi, but from Nagappa Garu and another who according to this deed
possessed a share in the Chowdariship. According to the statement in the kyfiat Exhibit C-3 the Siddalooru family, not only never enjoyed the office but were expelled from the country for adhering to
rebels and were living in exile at Conjeevaram near Madras, when the three brothers, one of them the recognised Zamindar, arranged to pay pagodas 2,000 for their unsubstantial rights and sent this sum to
them in exile at Conjeevaram. It seems an extraordinary story, and I am not prepared to place much reliance on these documents which are first heard of in connection with a dispute between the Court of
Wards and the family between the years 1.816 and 1818, as evidence that the Zamindari became the joint family property of the three brothers. It is worthy of observation that all the pedigrees begin with
Mukunda and do not include the name of his alleged brothers Peddi Reddi and Royappah.
As to the custom of impartibility in this family I agree with the District Judge that it is established by the evidence. The pedigree, Exhibit A, appended to the Collector''s Report of 1824, Exhibit F,
shows that the succession was according to the custom of primogeniture, the names of the successive Zamindars or Deshmooks being inserted in circles marked yellow to distinguish them from the other
members of the family. As I have already pointed out, in 1766 the Company dealt with Lutchey, the mother of the minor Zamindar, and this is also evidence of recognition of the custom. Exhibit XII shows
that at the death of Venkatanarasimha in 1803 his brother Booloka was alive, and it may be gathered from the letter that he did not claim as the eldest member of the joint family that the permanent sunnad
should be his name but was willing to superintend the conduct of his young nephew Kodandaramiah to whom the sunnad was given.
Kodandramiah died in 1814, and the estate was taken charge of by the Court of Wards under Regulation V of 1804 without objection, which had no authority to take charge unless the estate
belonged to the minor. Exhibit XIII reports that the surviving cousin of the deceased declared the minor was the rightful inheritor and that his rights were fully acknowledged by the cousin of the deceased.
Exhibit XIII (a) contains a pedigree (torn) and a statement taken from them. With reference to Kodandaramiah, the Istimrar Zamindar, the pedigree states that although he was younger than his four uncles
the sunnad was bestowed upon him according to the former usage of their Samasthanam. This is the clearest recognition of impartibility. The statement says that on his death-bed Kodandaramiah
commended the junior members to obey Venkataramiah who was the eldest of his uncles, and they stated that according to usage the Zamindari should be in the name of Kodandaramiah''s minor son and
that ""the right of the Zamindar should be vested in him"", and they could manage for him. This was signed by Nos. 2, 17, 27 and 34 in the pedigree. The eldest dayadi accepted the office of Manager under
the Court of Wards but beyond paying the kists failed to account for the collections. The Collector also reports that it was set up that the property in the Nizam''s territories belonged to another branch of
the family, and he vainly attempted to obtain particulars about it through the Resident at Hyderabad. All he could ascertain was that the Keesara family had for a very long time enjoyed the Russoms and
Savarams of a Zamindari of 13 villages in the Cumbummet Havelly or Purgannah under the litle of Desmook, Exhibit I (b), dated 7--10--1815, As he could not get the member of the family in the
management to account, the Collector removed him from office and put in an ameen, Exhibit XIV (b) 4-6-1816. It was at this stage that the Kyfiat Exhibit C-3, if genuine, was submitted in which it is
sought to lay a foundation for representing the property as belonging to the whole family and the documents C, C-1 and C-2 were put forward in support of this case, while at the same time it was not
denied that the Estate had been ruled by Mukundappa. There are numerous inaccurate statements in the document. It is clearly an incomplete copy of the original, if any, and is in my opinion open to
considerable suspicion having regard to the time when it came into existence. The Estate was handed back to the Zamindar with the outstanding balance on his attaining majority on 5--1--1818, Exhibit
XIV (e) and the junior members do not seem to have taken any exception to this.
In 1824 the Collecter of Kistna presented a report on the Zamindaries in his District and his report on this Zamindari is the strongest evidence in favour of the plaintiffs. It is based on the old pedigree in
the office, no doubt, Exhibit A-3, the one put in connection with the permanent Sunnad and a new one "" recently furnished by the present Zamindar together with the required explanation"". After repeating
the story of the acquisition by Mukunda and his two brothers,"" it states that it is in the enjoyment of the descendants of Mukundap-pa as the two persons died without issue. Venkatanarasimha Rao the
present Zamindar is the sixth person from the said Mukundappa. Although there were second sons in every generation of this family, yet it appears that no division of the taluq was ever made between
them, but the profits derived from it were enjoyed by all reserving only to the head of their family the title of Deshmookor Zamindar"". Having regard to the facts that no such claim as this was put forward in
1803 or again in 1814, and to the fact that the estate balance was handed over to the Zamindar on attaining his majority in 1818 I cannot help doubting whether this information was not supplied to the
Collector by the junior members of the family rather than by the Zamindar. This suspicion is enhanced by what took place on his death in 1835. He adopted a boy on his death-bed and by his will, Exhibit
H-2, appointed the boy''s natural father as his guardian. The will directed him to continue to provide for the four families, the descendants of the Istimrar''s uncles. Exhibit H-1 is anarji addressed by the
Zamindar to the Collector in which he asked that the Zamindari should be placed in the management of the Court of Wards and enclosed a booted list or list of allowances to be paid which in my opinion
included the payments to be made to the junior branches for maintenance. The list is not forthcoming but some particulars of it are to be found in Exhibit H. The report, Exhibit H-3, makes arrangements for
the management and estimates that a balance will be available for the Zamindar on attaining majority. It does not appear that on this occasion the family put forward any such claims as are stated in Exhibit
F. Exhibit XVI and XVI (a) show the difficulties which arose, and that the boy''s natural father was placed in management under Regulation V of 1804. The fact that on the occasion of the minorities in
1814 and 1835 the Court of Wards took possession on behalf of the minor without objection from the members of the junior branches is strongly against the plaintiffs'' case because if it was joint family
property, the senior adult male would have been entitled to manage. When the minor came of age in 1849 he was necessarily under the influence of his natural father who belonged to one of the junior
branches. The propertiea in the Nizams''s dominions had been outside the Court of Ward''s jurisdiction during his long minority and disputes appear to have at once arisen about them. In these
circumstances he joined in Exhibit K which provided for the management both of the Zamindari and of the Hyderabad properties by the Zamindar and a member of one of the junior branches for a period
of fifteen years on what I will take to be terms of equal sharing. Exhibit K was modified by certain other agreements during his life-time. At the time of his death there were disputes about to be referred to
arbitration and, as appears from Exhibit R, dated 29th January 1855, at the time of his death he was contending that the villages had been obtained from him by fraud, intimidation, and intrigue. Exhibit K
was only for 15 years and the Zamindar died about five years after its execution. On his death in 1854 his widow was put in possession by the Revenue Authorities as next heiress, apparently according to
the opinion of the pundits that the nearest heir to the Estate of a person divided from his coheirs was his widow, Exhibit R, and set up an authority to adopt under a will. One of the junior members then
filed a suit to recover his one-tenth share of the Estate treating it as partible. This was traversed in the rejoinder put in by the widow, the 1st defendant, which has been exhibited as Exhibit XIX. The widow
entered into a razinamah with the junior branches which was embodied in a decree, Exhibit W, after the objections of her mother-in-law, the 2nd defendant, had been over-ruled. The decree provided that
the ghatis should assent to the adoption by the widow pursuant to her husband''s will, of Venkataraghava Rao, son of one of the ghatis, than an annual allowance should be paid to each of the five branches
and the balance of the collections should be deposited in Court on account, as I understand, of the Estate until the adopted boy attained majority.
It was argued before us that the impartibility of the Estate was acknowledged by this consent decree and that it barred the present suit. There would have been more force in this contention, if the
decree had directed that the balance should be deposited in Court on behalf of the minor until he attained majority. Possibly that was the provision in the original razinamah which is not forthcoming, but it is
by no means so clear in the consent decree. Whatever be the effect of the consent decree it did not in my opinion affect the possession which the widow had taken as heiress of her husband.
The boy who claimed to have been taken in adoption sued the widow to recover possession of the Zamindari in O.S. No. 2 of 1868 in the District Court of Guntur. The widow died in the same year
and her daughter, the alleged adoptive mother of the 2nd defendant in this suit, was brought on the record in place of the widow and also took possession of the Zamindari which she enjoyed until her
death in 1892, the boy''s suit having been finally dismissed by this Court on 3-8-1872, Exhibit XX.
Now the succession of the widow of the late Zamindar and of her daughter after her was a clear denial of the claim of the junior branches that the estate was either joint family property or owned by
the family as tenants-in-common. The possession of the daughter from 1868 onwards was, in my opinion, clearly adverse to the claim of the junior branches that it was joint family property. Their case now
is that the different branches had become divided by the suit of 1857 or earlier, and if this is so, they are not in my opinion governed by Article 127 which covers suits by a person excluded from joint
family property to enforce a right to a share therein. This article in my opinion applies to suits by one or more members of a joint family against other members to enforce a right to share therein against
other co-parceners, and does not apply to a suit brought after partition by some members of the family against others when they have become tenants-in-common and the exclusion is therefore not from
joint family property within the meaning of the article. Neither condition is to be found here. The suit is not against another member of the joint family but against the 2nd defendant claiming through his
mother as heir to the last Zamindar, and the plaintiff does not now claim to be entitled to a partition as a member of a joint family, but as one of several tenants-in-common. If the suit can be regarded as
brought by the plaintiff as the heir of one of the tenants-in-common against the 2nd and other defendants as heirs of the other tenants-in-common, then the suit must be governed by Article 144. In this view
the possession of the Zamindar''s daughter from 1868 to 1892 must in my opinion be regarded as adverse to and exclusive of the claims of the other branches of the family and adverse to them from the
first within the meaning of Article 144. She did not enter as a tenant-in-common with the members of the junior branches, but as heiress to her father and entitled as such to succeed to the impartible
Zamindari. The case of the junior branches from 1868 to 1882 was, not that the Zamindari was partible, but that the succession went not to the widow and daughter of the late Zamindar but to the senior
dayadi; and it was only in 1882 that they altered their position and renewed the claim that the estate was partible, a position they varied during the course of the suit by alleging that it was not partible joint
family property, but as property enjoyed after partition by the family as tenants-in-common. The 2nd defendant''s mother did not enter as heiress to one of several tenants-in-common but notoriously as
heiress to her husband, and her possession was never that of one tenant-in-common holding on behalf of herself and the other tenants-in-common but adverse from the first to the claims of the junior
members as tenants-in-common, and none the less so because of irregular payments made to them for maintenance, Such payments in those days having regard to the notions then prevailing in Southern
India as to the nature of impartible estates and the interests therein of the junior members of the family were attributable to their position as junior members of the family and quite consistent with the claim to
hold the estate as an impartible Zamindari adversely to the rest of the family. For the foregoing reasons I see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the District Judge that the estate is impartible and that
the suits for partition are barred by limitation. These findings do not however dispose of the case, because the plaintiff in the 2nd suit is the nearest dayadi and the nearest heir of the late Zamindar if the 2nd
defendant''s adoption be not established, and he would be consequently entitled to succeed on the death of the Zamindar''s daughter if his rights have not become barred by limitation. Now the rights of this
plaintiff and the other members of the family as co-parceners or tenants-in- common or as preferential heirs to the Zamindar''s widow and daughter have in my opinion become barred and extinguished
under the Limitation Act, but the widow and daughter having taken as preferential heirs to the other members of the family, I do not think the rights of the other members of the family to succeed on failure
of the daughter''s line have been affected. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the 2nd defendant''s adoption is established. There is really no dispute about the factum of the adoption, and the only
question is whether the authority to adopt is duly established. The first question which arises is, whether the provision in Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act which requires authorities to adopt not
contained in a will to be registered has any application to an authority to adopt given in Hyderabad outside British India by a subject of that State domiciled there. If not, such an authority is not a
document required by Section 17 to be registered"" within the meaning of Section 49 of the Act, and is not affected by the provisions of that section. Now the limits of legislative authority are territorial and
the Indian Legislature in particular has authority to legislate only for British India and British subjects in Native States. Prima facie, therefore, its enactments are not to be construed to apply to acts done
outside British India even by British subjects. The authorities on the subject of the territorial effect of statutes are collected in the late Mr. Craies'' Statute Law, 2nd Edition, pp. 393-425, and I will only
refer to Coolie v. Charles A. Vogeler Co. (1901) A.C. 102. Dulaney v. Merry & Son (1901) 1 Q.B.536 and Swifte v. Attorney-General for Ireland (1912) A.C. 276 where it was held that an Irish
statute enacting that, where one of the parties to a marriage was a Protestant, the marriage if celebrated in a particular manner viz., "" by a Popish priest"" should be null and void, had no application to the
marriage so celebrated in Austria of a Protestant domiciled in Ireland. The Indian Legislature might of course enact that an authority to adopt wherever and by whomsoever made should not be recognised
in India for any purpose unless it had been registered in British India pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, and we should be bound to give effect to that provision, as effect was given in
the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 C& F. 858 E.R.1034 to the provision of the Royal Marriage Act that no descendant of the body of George II should be capable of contracting matrimony without the
previous consent of His Majesty and that any marriage of any such descendant without such consent first had and obtained shall be null and void. There is however a strong presumption against attributing
to it any such intention.
The instruments of which registration is compulsory under the Act are enumerated in Section 17, and the effects of failure to register are to be found in Section 49. The documents which were required
to be registered by the earliest Registration Acts all related to Immovable property, meaning of course Immovable property situated in British India; and it may be taken that the legislature has sufficiently
manifested its intention that none of the enumerated documents affecting Immovable property situated in British India should be valid unless so registered even if executed outside British India, as held in
Hicks v. Powell (1869) 4 Ch. App. 741 more especially as Section 26 provides for the registration of such documents at any time within four months after their first arrival in British India.
Different considerations however apply to the provisions of Section 17(3) which were first enacted in 1871 that ""authorities to adopt a son executed after the first day of January 1872 and not
conferred by a will, shall also be registered."" That is a provision affecting status. The Indian Legislature has no authority to legislate as to the status of the subjects of Native States domiciled in such States
and this provision cannot, in my opinion, on the well established rules of construction be read as extending to an authority to adopt conferred in Hyderabad by a subject of that State domiciled there, whose
only connection with British India was that his wife owned property there. Questions of the validity of adoptions made outside British India by persons who are not British subjects may arise in our Courts,
not only in connection with claims to succeed to Immovable property situated in British India, but also in other ways too numerous to mention, and it would in my opinion be altogether opposed to the
accepted canons of construction to attribute to the Indian Legislature when it inserted in the Registration Act what is now Section 17(3) an intention to interfere in any way with a question of such adoptions
which is a matter outside its competence. For these reasons 1 am of opinion that the provisions of the Indian Registration Act did not apply to the authority to adopt the 2nd defendant; and that it is
unnecessary to consider the further question whether these provisions were in fact complied with.
On the supposition that they were applicable much manifestly false evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that the authority to adopt was taken to Masulipatam and shown to the
Collector shortly after its execution, as well as some not very satisfactory evidence on behalf of the 2nd defendant, which the District Judge has accepted, that, though the donee of the authority resided
almost continuously in British India after her husband''s death the authority to adopt remained in the Nizam''s dominions until shortly before the Registration proceedings. I do not consider it necessary to
decide this question or the questions as to the construction of the Registration Act which arise if it be held applicable to this authority to adopt. As regards these questions of construction, I am inclined to
agree with the conclusions of my learned brother whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading.
I also agree with my learned brother for the reasons given by him that there is no sufficient reason for differing from the findings of the District Judge that the authority was in fact given and the adoption
in fact made.
The appeals are dismissed with costs. The case is one of great complexity and under Rule 41 of the Appellate Side Rules, we grant a special fee of Rs. 3,000 to cover the Vakil''s fees in both suits.
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
Appeal No. 426 is against the decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1895 on the file of the District Court of Kistna sitting at Masulipatam. The connected Appeal No. 427 is against the decree passed in the earlier
Suit O.S. No. 30 of 1893 filed in the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Ellore but transferred to the file of the District Court above mentioned in 1895.
To face page 167.
GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE KEESARA FAMILY, ZAMINDARS
OF MUNAGALA ESTATE.
O.S. No. 45 of 1895 on the file of the
District Court, Kistna.
Pedda Reddi Mukundappa Rayappa.
| 1z
_____________________
| |
R.K. Suranna 2Z. R.K. Narasanna,
left a widow,
Latchayi 3Z.
|
________________
| |
R.K. Venkata R.K. Suranna.
Ramanna 4z.
|
______________________
I II
___________________________________
| |
R.K.V. Rao 5Z. R.K. Venkata Krishna Rao 1.
| |
R.K.K. 6Z. ___________________________
(C) | | A. |
C.R.K.V. Rao 7Z R.K. Venkata Ramanna Garu, 2. R.K.V. 3.
| | |
R.K.K. (adopted) _______________________ R.K.V. 6.
8Z. | | |
| R.K.V. 4 R.K.V. 5.____________________________
Widow R.K.R. | | F.R.K.R13. |R.K.G.14 |F.R.K.V.15
Rao 9Z. ___________ ______|_________________________
| | | | | | |
Daughter, R.K.V. 7. R.K.K. 8. R.K.L. 9. R.K.V.10. B.K.V. 11. R.K.R. 12
Naini Latchamma
Rao 10 Z.
|
N.V.R. 2nd defendant
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
| | | |
D R.K.R.19 R.K.B R.K. Venkatagopala
R.K.N. | | 20. Rao, 26
R.K.V. R.K.V. R.K.Venka- __________|___________
R.K.V. 22 23 ta Narasimha | |
| Rao, 24 R.K. Nara R.K.R.
R.K.R. simha 28.
Ist plff. 25 Rao, 27 |
(dead) | R.K.V.
R.K.V. 30.
|
| R.K.V.
R.K.V. 2nd plff.
32.
|
R.K.L.
3rd plff. 33.
____________________________________________________________________
|
V
|
R.K. Venkatachalamiah, 34.
________________________________|_______________________________________ | |
R.K.V.35. B.K.V.36.
________________|_______________________________ |
| | | | R.K.V. 41.
R.K.K. 37. R.K.V.38. R.K.V. 39. R.K.L. |
________________| 4th plff. R.K.V. 3rd deft.
___________|_________ (dead), 40 (dead), 48.
| | | ________|_______ ___________|________
R.V.R. R.K.V. R.K.S. | | | |
10th 44. 13th plff. R.K.V. R.K.C. R.K.V. R.K.C.
plff. 43 (dead) 45. 5th plff. 9th plff. 4th deft. 5th deft.
________|_________ ____| 46. 47. 57. 58.
| | | | | | |
R.K.V. R.K.M. K. 51.___|______ | V. 56. V. 6th deft.
11th 12th | | |_____________ 57. (s)
plff. plff. R.K.V. R.K.L. |
50. 14th plff. 15th plff. ____________|________________
(dead) 52,(b) | | |
R.K.N. R.K.V. R.K.V.
6th plff. 7th plff. 8th plff.
54. 55.
|
P. (minor),
16th plff.
The earlier Suit 30 of 1893 was filed in November 1893 and the plaint is dated November 1893 and this earlier suit will be treated as the more important suit and the several parties will be referred to
in this judgment by the numbers given to them in the pleadings in this suit as far as possible.
The suit has taken 25 1/2 years from its inception before it could be decided by this Court. The delay has be en extraordinary even for a heavy Indian Zamindari litigation in which great delay seems to
be accepted as normal. The history of the suits up to April 1914 is given in paragraph 227 of the District Court''s Judgment. The suit was brought by 13 plaintiffs belonging to the Keesara family residing at
Sirapuram in the borders of the Kistna District adjoining Hyderabad territory against 5 defendants. The 1st defendant was the Court of Wards who have since gone out of the record owing to the 2nd
defendant for whom they managed the suit property, namely, the Munagala Zamin estate, having become a major during the pendency of this litigation. The 2nd defendant is the Zamindar residing at
Nadigudam near Sirapuram where the plaintiffs live. The defendants 3 to 5 (4th and 5th defendants being the sons of the 3rd defendant) are three other members of the Keesara family who were arrayed
as defendants because they refused to join the 13 plaintiffs in bringing this suit.
It will be seen that the 2nd defendant is the principal defendant in the suit and he may be shortly called the defendant. As might be expected; some of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiffs 1, 4, 6, and 7 have
died during these 26 years and three additional plaintiffs (14 to 16) came in afterwards. The suit, shortly stated, was for recovery of possession of the Munagala Zamindari from the defendant. The suit was
dismissed and the plaintiffs are the appellants before us. To understand the main allegations of the plaintiffs on which they based their claim, the following geneological table and certain indisputable facts
might be referred to here.
It will be seen from the geneological tree (containing more than 60 names) that 10 persons (excluding the defendant) of whom 8 are males and 2 are females, have been marked and numbered
separately (with red-ink lined circles round the numbers). These have been recognised as the Zamindars and the Zamindarnees of Munagala entitled to be addressed as "" Rajagaru "" and ""Zamindar"", while
the remaining 50 odd persons numbered separately were treated as entitled to maintenance allowances called "" Bhootad."" The fourth Rajah (V. Ramanna) had 5 sons the eldest of whom was the fifth
Rajah, his 4 younger brothers being Nos. 1, 16, 26 and 34 in the geneological tree. It will be seen that the dignity and status of Rajah or Zamindar was held only by a single member of. this Keesara family
from the time of the earliest ancestor Mukundappa and that it descended in lineal primogeniture till the 2nd Kothandaramiah (Rajah No. 8). Then it descended to his widow the 9th Rajah Rukkamma Row
and then to the tenth Rajahgaru who was his daughter Latchamma Rao. Exhibit A 1, a pedigree of the Keesara family prepared in 1824 and obtained from the Masulipatam Collector''s Cutchery is a
geneological tree which shows the first seven Zamindars marking them 1 to 7, the numerical figures being enclosed in yellow line circles. The 3rd Rajah was no doubt the younger brother of the second Raj
ah, but the 2nd Rajah''s senior line became extinct and so the third Rajah came in. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Rajahs came in as belonging to the eldest line though the 4th had a younger brother, the 5th had
4 younger brothers, the 6th had 4 uncles and the 7th had several seniors in age in the junior four branches when they respectively succeeded to the Purgana Estate.
The first Rajah of this family (Mukundappa) flourished about the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century as is shown by Exhibits C and C2. Exhibit IX is a communication to
Mukundappa addressing him as ""the most excellent of his contemporaries"". It is dated 1693. A Military General commanding the forces of the Emperor Alamgir (Aurangazebe) tells Mukundappa in Exhibit
IX ""we are quickly starting, and coming to punish the rebel Asway Rao. You should come with your army; you should pay homage so that the Imperial Government may prosper and be honoured. You
should come without entertaining doubt in respect of any matter and be honoured."" Thus in 1693, though Mukundappa had then an elder brother and a younger brother (see Exhibits C and C2), he seems
to have been , recognised as the influential head of an army, a sort of petty military chief bound to assist the Emperor Aurangazebe. The Munagala Estate belonged to an ancient Reddi family and was part
of the Mogul territory till 1755. It was held by members of the Garlapati Reddi family till 1690. As pointed out in paragraph 25 of the District Court''s judgment, Reddis at Munagala seem to have been
recognised as chiefs even from 1300 A. D. The line of the Garlapati Reddis became extinct about 1688 and the daughter-in-law of the last male-holder, Subadramma, transferred the Munagala Estate and
the Desagiri or Desmuk status (which her father-in-law''s family had enjoyed) to her brothers of the Keesara family one of whom was Mukundappa. This was in 1690 (Bee Exhibit C). As we have seen,
three years after this, in 1693, Mukundappa is addressed as Zamindar in Exhibit IX and asked to assist with his army the General of the Delhi Emperor. The residence of the Munagala Chief was
surrounded by mud forts. Desmuk means a principal, Police and Revenue Officer of a District and it is well-known that many of the Desmuks in Central India gradually claimed and acquired semi-
sovereign powers and many of them called themselves not only Zamindars but Rajahs. When Subhadramma transferred her Zamindari of Munagala in 1690 to her brothers, she seems to have obtained the
consent of several Sirkar officers, and influential men, about 70 persons having signed the Mahazir at the foot of Exhibit C, giving their approval to her act. As said in Grant''s Political Survey, the transfer of
such military estates seemed to require the consent of the people and it no doubt also required the consent of the ruling power before it could be recognised. I think I am safe in presuming that before 1693
when Exhibit IX was addressed to Mukundappa, he had been recognised by the ruling power as the Desmuk or chief of the ancient Munagala Purgana Zamindari though his sister executed Exhibit C in
favour of all her three brothers. We do not hear of either of his two brothers enjoying or claiming any interest in the Munagala Estate, though their names appear to Exhibits C and C2.
On the death of Mukundappa (the first Keesara Rajahgar) which was in some year after 1705, his eldest son Sooranna became the second Rajah. On his death without issue his younger brother,
Narasanna became the third Rajah. He seems to have died about 1760 or so leaving two sons Venkat-ramanna and Sooranna and a widow Latchayee. The widow Latchayee is treated as the Zamindarini
in Exhibit X, datedl766, evidently because her eldest son who is entered as the fourth Rajah in Exhibit Al was then a minor. She is stated to be the mistress of a force armed with 206 matchlocks and 200
pikes in constant pay, the pikes capable of being increased to 300 in case of troubles. Then in 1770 the fourth Zamindar got the cowle or sunnad (Exhibits D and Dl) for the District of Munagala, the
Munagala Zemindari Estate having become part of the Company''s territory about 1766.
The fourth Zamindar was succeeded after 1774 by the eldest of his five sons who became the fifth Zemindar. He died on 9th November 1802 while the Mulkath Isthimirar Sunnad was being Prepared
in his favour. The sunnad Exhibit XI was therefore given to his adopted son Kothandaramiah No. 1 who succeeded him to the Purgana estate as 6th Rajahgar though (as I said already) his 4 uncles, all
elder in age to him (he was only 22 then) were alive. (See asterisk note in Exhibit XIII (a) as to his four uncles). The Collector in Exhibit XII dated 21st January 1803 says: ""The deceased"" (5th Rajah) ""has
left one son Kothanda Ramiah aged about 22 years to whose succession to his father''s estate I perceive no objection. The deceased''s brother Bhuloka Rao is alive and will superintend the conduct of his
nephew. Gumastah however has been sent to receive charge of the country until the orders of the Board,"" (that is, the Board of Revenue) ""are received."" In Exhibit XII (a) also, the words are that the
Sunnad Isthimirar may be sent for delivery after alteration of the name of the late Desmuk into the name of the late Desmuk''s son in the event of His Lordship in Council approving of his succession to his
father''s estate. Exhibit XII (b) also recommends Kothandaramiah to be recognised as successor.
Rajah No. 6 Kothandaramiah died in the beginning of 1814. He left an only son Narasimha Rao aged 13. ""From information it appears that the surviving cousin of the late Zamindar declared the son
aged 13 years of the deceased to be the rightful inheritor and I therefore appointed an ameen to take charge of the Zamindari and wrote a letter to the other relatives, a translation of which as well as of
their replies is herewith transmitted. From the latter paper the Board will perceive that the right of the boy so far from being disputed is fully acknowledged by the cousins of Kothandaramiah."" ''''I know not
therefore whether your Board would not better consult the interests of the boy etc. "" (See Exhibit XIII dated April 1814). The reply of the cousins referred to in Exhibit XIII is Exhibit XIII (a) and is in my
opinion a very important document. It is signed by No. 34 (the surviving youngest son of the 5 sons of No. 4 Rajah) and also by Nos. 2, 17, and 27 in the geneological tree who are evidently the heads of
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of the five branches. In this Exhibit XIII (a), a geneological tree is given and there is a note against Kothandaramiah that although this young man was younger than his four uncles, yet
the Zamindari was bestowed upon him "" according to the former usage of their Samasthanam "" and then it is said "" Although Venkatanarasimha Rao"" (that is the boy of 13) ""the son of the late
Kothandaramiah is younger than us, yet the Zamindari should be in his name according to the succession of the first branch of the family. The right of the Zamindari and the cowle granted by the Company
should therefore be vested in him, and until he gains sufficient knowledge we will take care ourselves to pay the circar kists. We will manage all the affairs of the estate for hint etc."" Accordingly, the Board
of Revenue took charge of the estate in 1814 on behalf of the minor Zamindar Kothandaramiah, see Exhibit XIII (b). I need hardly say that unless the proprietary right to the Zamindari was considered to
be vested solely in the minor, the Board of Revenue under the Regulation V of 1804 could not lawfully take possession. It was evidently because the other 4 branches admitted in Exhibit XIII (a) that
according to the usage of the Samasthanam, succession by lineal primogeniture obtained so far as the proprietary right to the Zamindari of Munagala was concerned, the Board of Revenue considered that
they had jurisdiction to take possession, to appoint a manager and do the other acts mentioned in Regulation V of 1804 till the minor proprietor attained his majority (that is, 18 years of age), (see Sections
3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 19, etc., of Regulation V of 1804.) Exhibit XIII (d) shows that a manager was appointed to the estate and also a guardian for the minor. Exhibits XIV (e) and XIV (d) are very important
documents. They show that the Zamindari was handed to the 7th Rajah Venkata Narasimha Rao in 18 18 with Rs. 3,000 odd outstanding in the treasury ""with all due solemnity"" and that about May 1818
just before he attained majority (that is the age of 18 years) Rs. 4,000 was spent for his nuptials. This 7th Rajah Venkata Narasimah Rao who was so put in possession of the Zamindari by the Court of
Wards on his attaining majority in 1818 died in August 1835. During this period, there was prepared the pedigree Exhibit A 1. of 1824, distinguishing the seven Keesaras who had succeeded to the
Zamindari in lineal succession from the members of the other four branches who did not so succeed. Then there is Exhibit F of the same year which consists of two paragraphs 69 and 70 out of a long
report of Mr. Roberts relating to all the Zamindaris in the Kistna, District. These two paragraphs relateto this Munagala Zamindari. The following are the important passages in Exhibit F: ""Venkata
Narasimha Rao, the present Zamindar, is the sixth person from the said Mukundappa, although there were second sons in every genaration of this family yet it appears that no division of the Taluk was ever
made between them, but the profits derived from it were enjoyed by all consiting of five families reserving only to the head of their family the title of Deshmuk or Zamindar "" ""The Office of Deshmuk was
abolished in 1802.
On the 6th August 1835, the 7th Rajah made his will, Exhibit H2, in favour of his adopted son, Kothandaramiah No. 2, the 8th Zamindar as follows:
[His lordship after setting out the terms of the will constituting the adopted son, heir to the Zemindary refers to the period of the Rajah''s minority and proceeds,]
He therefore attained his majority on some day between 7th August 1848 and 5th August 1849. On the 14th April 1849, the Rajah as the second signatory and 9 other persons belonging to the
Keesara family executed the Samakhya, (agreement), Exhibit K, in the presence of the Taluk Tahsildar.
[The judgment then sets out the circumstances under which Exhibit K was executed.]
Now let us see what the arrangement itself is. It clubs the Munagala Zamindari consisting of about 38 villages situated within the Company''s Jurisdiction with 3 small taluks containing about 11 villages
in the Nizam''s dominions belonging to the Keesara family. The income from the British Indian villages was then about Rs. 10,000 annually, whereas the income from the Native State villages seems to have
been about Rs. 600 to Rs. 800 (See Exhibits XXIV (c) and XXXI and the evidence of D. W. 15). The document Exhibit K says that the management of the total income for the 15 years between 1st July
1849 and 1st July 1864 should be as follows:
(1) From the 1st July 1849 to 1st July 1854 the Rajah Zamindar Kothandaramiah of Munagala and Venkatakrishniah of the 3rd branch (No. 15 in the geneological tree) were to manage the joint income;
(2) From the 1st July 1854 to 1st July 1859 the Rajah Kothandaramiah and one other man to be selected from six of the signatories to manage; and
(3) From 1st July 1859 to 30th June 1864 the Zamindar Kothandramiah again and one person to be selected by the three remaining signatories of Exhibit K to manage the total income. The document
provides that all debts incurred till then should be accepted as payable by these three sets of two managers in each set (the Zamindar being always one of the two managers) so that the Sowcar was quite
safe. Rs. 2,750 was to be set apart for the maintenance of the five branches of the family at Rs. 550 for each branch, Nothing is said as to what was to become after the expiry of the 15 years'' term but
evidently the parties thought that within that period, the debts of the Sowcar would be wiped out.
Disputes seem to have arisen at once and then the young Zamindar seems to have agreed to allow the four branches each to enjoy one or two villages for Bhootad, the income of each set of villages
being estimated to amount approximately to Rs. 550.
While these disputes were going on this 8th Zamindar Kothandaramiah No. 2 died on the 22nd November 1854 (See. Exhibit R1). Then the Collector wrote Exhibit R to the Commissioner for
Northern Circars. I shall extract the following passages: ""It appears that Gopamma the mother of the late Zamindar and Rukkamma his widow aged respectively 45 and 21 years are at peace with one
another and willing and able to manage the estate with the assistance of such male members of the family and old servants as have been all along in their interest....The only offspring of the deceased
Zamindar is a daughter reported to be five years old...With regard to the debts of the estate it appears that the late Zamindar had in his life-time made arrangements with Gonaguntala Seetayya, a Sowcar
of Jaggayyapet by making over to him the usufruct of certain villages both for the liquidation of the debt and for the annual payment of the whole peishcush of the estate.
With regard to the estate itself, I see no objection to its release from attachment and return of the several villages to those parties under whose enjoyment they were at the time of the death of the late
Zamindar that portion which was in the hands of the Zamindar being given up to the mother and widow.
""The opinion of the Pundits of the Sudder Adalet appears to decide that under the Hindu Law the estate of a person divided from his co-heirs who dies leaving no male heirs devolves first, upon his
widow and then upon his daughter."" This was in January 1855. Evidently in accordance with the above opinion of Pundits and treating the Munagala Zamindari as impartible estate which belonged to
Kothandaramiah No. 2 who was divided in interest from the other four branches of the family (see the decision of the Privy Council in Tara Kumari v. Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh I.L.R (1915) Cal. 1179 :
1915 29 M.L.J. 371 the estate was put into the possession of Rukkamma, the widow of Kothandaramiah in 1855 itself. Thereupon the members of the other four families seem to have brought five suits
O.S. Nos. 5 to 9 of 1857. We have got some of the records (Exhibits B, XIX, W and WI) in two of those suits. Exhibit B is the plaint in O.S. 9 of 1857. The plaintiffs in that suit belong to one sub-branch
out of the two sub-branches of one of the five main branches of the family. In the plaint, it is alleged that the Nizam''s dominion villages are in the enjoyment of the 4 branches alone and not of the senior
branch in whose name the Munagala Zamindary proprietorship is registered. The plaintiffs sue for their one-tenth share in the 38 villages yielding an income of about Rs. 13,500 gross and Rs. 9,000 net.
The last sentence in the plaint says that even as regards the one-fifth share of the senior branch, the plaintiffs and the other members of the other four families are the next reversioners as the senior line
became extinct for want of male issue. (The widow Rukkamma is impliedly acknowledged to be the widow of a divided member entitled to inherit his estate. In Exhibit XIX, Rukkamma Rao gave a
rejoinder"" written statement in which she denied that the other four branches had any share in the proprietorship of the Munagala Zamindary and stated that the other four branches had admitted long ago
before the Collector that they were entitled only to Bhootad (maintenance allowances), that the plaintiffs and others have acknowledged that they were living separately, that "" when my husband has
executed a will in accordance with the Hindu law, kinsmen who are not entitled have no right to say that it is contrary to law,"" that the words "" Rajah "" and "" Zamindar "" apply only to the "" Rajah "" who is
exercising overlordship "" and that the plaintiffs owing to lack of such ownership cannot get the titles of Rajah and Zamindar. In fact, the divided status was clearly admitted by both sides and the only
question was whether the estate of Munagala was a partible estate or an impartible estate. Then the widow who had in the meanwhile pretended to have adopted a boy, one of her husband''s cousins
compromised all the suits, the principal terms of that compromise being recited in the judgment, Exhibit W, dated March 1858. The terms are that though the other four families were receiving only each
Rs. 400 for their ""maintenance"" allowance till then, (the Rs. 550 mentioned in Exhibit K had been reduced to Rs. 400 under Exhibit T. Series in 1857) it was agreed that the Rs. 400 should be increased to
Rs. 500 that the plaintiffs in Suit 7 of 1857 (representing one of the two sub-branches of one of the five families) was entitled to Rs. 250 maintenance accordingly, that the widow should spend Rs. 500 for
the maintenance of her own first branch, that she should meet the other usual expenses including festivals of deities, establishment charges and so on and that she should deposit the savings "" till the age of
18 years comes to the adopted son'''' to the credit of the Munagala Purgana. The original razinamah itself is not before us. The recital of the terms in paragraph 5 of Exhibit W leaves it rather obscure as to
whether the other four families had any share in the proprietorship of the Zamindari though the maintenance allowance of each of the branches, namely Rs. 500, was the same amount as what the widow
Rukkamma herself was to take out of the income for maintenance of the senior branch. The provision however that the savings should all be with her till her alleged adopted son attains the age of (18 years
and that the whole management of the Zamindari should remain with her seems to negative the idea that the other four divided branches had any claim on those savings or any claim on the Purgana except
that of obtaining maintenance out of its income. It seems to follow that they had no proprietorship in the Zamindari though they might have been co-sharers in the sense