AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—These appeals have been respectively filed by the proprietor of the erstwhile Seithur Zamfn and his illegitimate son
against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, directing apportionment between them of the compensation amount paid by
the Government on their taking over the zamin under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948). It will be convenient
to refer to the ranks of the parties with reference to the latter of the three appeals. Seithur zamin was an impartible estate governed by the
provisions of the Impartible Estates Act, 1904. The father of the appellant who was then the owner of the estate had executed a Will bequeathing
the entire zamin to the appellant Sevuga Pandia Thevar. On the taking over of the estate under the Abolition Act, which was on 8th March, 1954,
the Government deposited a sum of Rs. 68,589, as advance compensation. Sevuga Pandia Thevar has five legitimate sons and two daughters. He
has also an illegitimate son, the respondent who is now a minor.
The respondent''s mother applied before the III Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in M.P. No. 110 of 1953, against the appellant for the
payment of maintenance to her minor son. There was an order directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 100 per
mensem. That order was confirmed on revision by this Court and it is, stated that subsequently the paternity of the appellant has also been
established in a civil suit.
As soon as the advance compensation amounts were paid, the zamindar''s legitimate sons raised a claim that they were entitled to a share in
such amounts under S. 45 of the Abolition Act. This claim was, however, repudiated by the appellant who claimed that he was solely entitled to
the amount as the zamindari by the very terms of a testamentary disposition by his father formed his self-acquired property. Though this defence
did not succeed before the Tribunal, this Court upheld it on appeal and held that Sevuga Pandia Thevar (appellant) took the Zamin as his self-
acquired property. The judgment of this Court has been reported in Sevuga Pandia Thevar v. Thyagasundardas Thevar (1959) 1 M.L.J. 335-72
L.W. 270. We are now informed that an appeal has been filed against this judgment in the Supreme Court and that the same is pending in that
Court.
In the meanwhile the Government deposited two further sums of Rs. 33489 and Rs. 50659.07, as additional advance compensation and as the
first instalment of the final compensation. The respondent, the illegitimate son of the appellant, thereupon filed an application for his share of
compensation under S. 42(1) read with S. 45 of the Abolition Act, as a person entitled to maintenance from the impartible estate. The Tribunal
purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Chelladorai alias Tiruvarasu Pandian and Others Vs. Varagunarama Pandia Chhinnathambiar
(died) and Others, held that the respondent would be entitled to a share in the compensation amount. Computing his share as 1/40th, the Tribunal
passed an order directing payment out of a sum of Rs. 3743.26 nP. subject to satisfactory security being furnished as the respondent was a minor;
at the same time and as part of its order, it absolved the appellant of his liability to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem as directed
in M.P. No. 110 of 1953 on the file of the III Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet. Both the parties before the Tribunal have filed present appeals.
The appellant has contended that the property being his self-acquired property his illegitimate son could not be entitled to any share in the
compensation amount; the respondent on the other hand contends that as the legitimate sons had not made any claim to the compensation amount
the entire one-fifth share in the amounts should be paid over to him. A further objection has also been taken on his behalf as to the legality of the
Tribunal''s order setting aside the order of the Presidency Magistrate passed under the provisions of S. 488, Crl.P.C.
There can be little doubt that the direction of the Tribunal absolving the appellant of his liability to pay maintenance due under the order of the
Presidency Magistrate is invalid. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited by the terms of the statute. It has no further power to cancel or set aside
or vary a valid order of maintenance passed by the criminal Court on the ground that there has been a change of circumstances or for other
reasons. If the circumstances have so changed as to absolve the person liable to pay maintenance, the proper procedure will be to apply to the
Criminal Court under S. 488 (4), Crl.P.C., or to file a civil suit. That direction of the Tribunal will, therefore, have to be deleted.
But the more important question in the appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to any share in the compensation amounts. It has been
admitted by both the parties, and indeed the Tribunal itself has proceeded on that basis, that the case has got to be decided on the assumption that
the decision of this Court in Sevuga Pandia Thevar v. Thyagasundaradas Thevar 8 Mad. 325 is correct and that the zamin should be treated as the
self-acquired property of the appellant so long as that judgment remains in force. The respondent''s claim for a share in the compensation amounts
rests on S. 45 of the Abolition Act. That provision only applies to an impartible estate taken over by the Government and which had been
regarded as property of the joint Hindu family for the purpose of ascertaining succession thereto. The decision in M. Subbayya Thevar, Zamindar
of Uttumalai Vs. Sivagnana Marudappa Pandian, was one where the illegitimate son of a holder of an impartible estate claimed a right to share in
the compensation amount along with his legitimate brothers. That was a ease where succession to the impartible estate was on the basis that it was
joint family property. But in the present case it is conceded (for the purpose of this case) that the appellant had a right of disposition over the
property as his self-acquired property. It has, therefore, to be decided whether the respondent could be said to have an interest in the impartible
estate. If the legitimate sons do not have any interest in such an estate, it is ''difficult to see how an illegitimate son could have any. S. 9 of the
Impartible Estates Act specifies the persons who are entitled to maintenance out of the impartible estate where succession to such an estate is
regulated on the footing that it is regarded as joint Hindu family property. Under the Hindu Law the putative fat her would be liable to pay
maintenance to his illegitimate adult son. Vide Kuppa v. Singaravelu 8 Mad. 325. The question whether that personal right will attach to the
impartible estate which is the self-acquired property of its holder has been the subject matter of consideration in M. Subbayya Thevar, Zamindar of
Uttumalai Vs. Sivagnana Marudappa Pandian, . That was a case where a legitimate adult son claimed maintenance from his father who held an
Impartible estate as his own separate property and not as joint family property. The learned Judges held that the son would not be entitled to claim
any maintenance from such property. The Court, however, in this respect recognised a distinction between an impartible zamindari in the hands of
his father as joint family property and where it was his self-acquired one. The position of an illegitimate son cannot obviously be higher than that of
legitimate son where the impartible estate is the separate property of the father. Apart from a right to recover maintenance personally from his
father, an illegitimate son will have no interest in such impartible estate during his father''s lifetime. He will have therefore no right to any share in the
compensation amount on the estate being taken over by the Government under the Abolition Act. The order of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be
sustained and it is accordingly set aside. Apps. Nos. 23 and 29 of 1962 will be allowed and App. No. 20 of 1962 will stand dismissed. The order
of the Tribunal vacating the order of maintenance granted by the Criminal Court is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.