Raja Raja Jee Bahadur Garu vs Raja Parthasaradhi Appa Row

Andrew Scoble, J. 1. For some years after succeeding to his estate, Narayya, zemindar of Nidadavole, was in serious pecuniary difficulties. He owed a large sum of money to his kinsman, the zemindar of Nuzvid, besides considerable sums to other creditors and to Government for arrears of revenue. In 1839 a compromise was effected whereby a portion of the Nidadavole estate was to be handed over to the Nuzvid zemindar in satisfaction of his claim; and to complete the matter it was proposed that the Government demand should be relinquished, and "the remaining portion of the estate "made over to Narayya "in the event of his satisfying other private creditors." 2. In order to carry out these arrangements, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, in a despatch dated August 24, 1842, directed that the whole estate of Nidadavole should be sold; and this was accordingly done, and the estate was purchased by the Government for eight lakhs of rupees. By this purchase the Government became absolute owner of the estate, and the proprietary rights of Narayya were for the time extinguished. The claim of the zemindar of Nuzvid was satisfied by the transfer to him of certain villages; but the Board of Revenue, in a letter dated January 4, 1844, recommended that it was not advisable that Narayya should be placed in possession of his part of the estate "until all questions connected with the subject be definitely settled." 3. Among these questions was the satisfaction of the claims of other private creditors. It was proposed by the Collector of Masulipatam, who represented the Government in the negotiations, that "the most possible method of adjusting these claims, if the consent of the parties could be obtained, would be by the transfer permanently or temporarily, as the circumstances of each case might appear to require, of a certain portion of the estate, from the proceeds of which each claim might be realized"; and an adjustment on this basis was eventually made "after frequent conferences" between Narayy a and the various parties in the presence of the Collector. 4. Of the claims thus adjusted, the only one with which their Lordships have to deal is that of Simhadri and Venkatadri, the representatives of a younger branch of Narayya''s family, who were entitled to maintenance out of the estate, and to whom a considerable sum was owing for arrears. The terms of the settlement with these claimants are contained in two documents, which are thus described in paragraph 9 of the Collector''s Report to the Board of Revenue, dated November 18, 1843: "Enclosures 5 and 6 contain stipulations entered into by Narayya on the one hand, and Simhadri and Venkatadri on the other, by which it is agreed that eight villages appertaining to the Ambarpettah muttah... and two Mocassah villages...shall be permanently alienated to Simhadri and Venkatadri, they paying the peishcush which may be assessed on them. . . . This cession, it will be observed, is proposed not only in full satisfaction of the whole amount of arrears due for marriage expenses and the monthly allowance of 400 rupees due up to this period, but also in lieu of all further payment on account of the monthly allowance." In forwarding the Collector''s proposals for the sanction of Government, on January 4, 1844, the Board of Revenue say: "The alienation in favour of the Simhadri branch of the family, it is proposed, shall be in perpetuity." The final orders of Government appear to have been given on this basis; and Simhadri and Venkatadri were placed in possession of the villages, which may conveniently be described as the Tangellamudi muttah. 5. On March 15, 1846, the zemindar of Nuzvid assigned the muttah of Chavendra to Simhadri and Venkatadri in satisfaction of their claims upon him for maintenance past and future, and on August 7, 1846, the two brothers made a partition of their joint property, under which Simhadri took the muttah of Tangellamudi, and Venkatadri took Chavendra and two other villages. This partition was made "through and in the presence of Narayya," and proceeded on the assumption that Tangellamudi and Chavendra were held on the same absolute and permanent tenure. 6. Simhadri died in 1861, and his widow Sitayya succeeded to his estate. Sitayya died in 1885, and the contest in the suit ''under appeal is now between her daughter''s son (who would be her heir according to Hindu law) and persons who claim either under Venkatadri or Narayya. The sole question is whether, under the settlement of 1844, and the subsequent partition of 1846, Simhadri acquired an absolute title to the Tangellamudi muttah. 7. Upon the history of the case, as above stated, their Lordships have no doubt that the origin of the title was in a grant from the Government, and not from Narayya, who at the time of the transaction had no estate out of which he could make a grant. Nor do the documents relied on by the respondents, and which have already been mentioned as inclosures 5 and 6 to the Collector''s report of November 18, 1843, conflict with this view. These documents are two arzis, dated August 13, 1843, addressed to the Collector of Masulipatam, one by Narayya, and the other by Simhadri and Venkatadri. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the arzi signed by Narayya was, as regards seven of the villages mentioned therein, a grant by him for maintenance only, and therefore resumable on the death of Sitayya, the last person entitled to maintenance thereout. This was the view taken by the Subordinate Judge who tried the case in the first instance, and by the High Court of Madras on appeal. But their Lordships are unable to accede to this view. The arzi signed by Narayya was in no sense a conveyance. It was, as its name denotes, a petition to the Collector, which, after stating the terms of settlement agreed on between the parties, went on to say- "further that no claims of whatever nature may hereafter be for ever advanced, either by them for the payment of the said allowances, or by us regarding the aforesaid villages. I also gave my assent, and agree to abide according to the aforesaid conditions, and humbly solicit you will therefore be pleased to forward our petitions with your recommendation to the honourable Government and to the Board of Revenue, and at the time when the Nidadavole and Bahurzally pergunnahs as well as Ambarpett muttah may be made over to me by the Circar, allow the aforesaid eight villages in the Ambarpett muttah to be taken possession of by the said Simhadri and Venkatadri, and continue the aforesaid conditions in force." These words leave no doubt that what Narayya contemplated was a grant by the Government to Simhadri and Venkatadri of these villages in full settlement of their past and future claims on the estate, and by the partition in 1846 Simhadri''s title to them was completed. 8. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, and the decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court reversed, and the plaintiff''s suit dismissed with costs throughout. The respondents who were substituted for Papamma Row, the original respondent, must pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the revivor proceedings.