Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu vs Subbaraya Pillai and Ors.

Advertisements

FACT OF THE CASE

The fact of the case was that the Zamindar of Karvetinagar had alienated some portions of his estate to various persons by sale, mortgage or lease between 1894 and 1908. The plaintiffs, who were some of the reversioners of the Zamindar, filed suits in 1912 and 1913 to set aside the alienations and to recover possession of the alienated lands on the ground that the estate was impartible and inalienable by virtue of its tenure or by a custom under which the Zamindar for the time being was prohibited from alienating any portion of the estate, except for purposes for which the manager of a joint Hindu family (not the father) is entitled as such manager to make valid alienations of the joint family property. The Zamindar and the defendants, who were the alienees, resisted the suits and contended that the Zamindar had absolute power of alienation over his estate and that there was no custom or rule of law prohibiting him from doing so.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the Zamindar had absolute power of alienation over his estate or not.
2. Whether the estate was granted under a military tenure or a permanent settlement.
3.  Whether the sanad conferred full proprietary rights and powers of alienation on the Zamindar or not.
4. Whether there was any custom or usage prohibiting alienation of the estate or not.
5.  Whether there was any custom or usage making the estate impartible or not.
6. Whether there was any custom or usage governing the estate by primogeniture or not.
7. Whether the estate was joint family property or not.
8.  Whether the Zamindar was a mere manager of a joint family or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

1. – The appellant contended that he had absolute power of alienation over his estate and that there was no custom or rule of law prohibiting him from alienating any portion of the estate.
2. – The appellant argued that the estate was originally granted by the Nawab of Arcot under a military tenure which required him to render service and pay tribute to the Nawab and that this tenure did not imply any restraint on alienation without the permission of the overlord.
3. – The appellant claimed that the military tenure was abolished by the British Government in 1802 and a permanent settlement was made with him under which he was granted a sanad or deed of grant conferring full proprietary rights over the estate subject to the payment of a fixed annual peshkash or quit-rent.
4. – The appellant submitted that the sanad contained an express clause empowering him and his heirs and successors to sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the estate or any part thereof without any restriction or limitation.
5. – The appellant asserted that the sanad also contained a clause making the estate liable to be attached and sold in execution of decrees passed against him or his heirs and successors.
6. – The appellant pointed out that the sanad did not contain any clause preserving or recognizing any custom or usage relating to impartibility or inalienability of the estate.
7. – The appellant challenged the plaintiffs’ claim that there was a custom or usage prohibiting alienation of the estate or any part thereof by the Zamindar for the time being and that this custom or usage was reasonable and consistent with public policy.
8. – The appellant disputed the plaintiffs’ claim that there was a custom or usage making the estate impartible or governing it by the rule of primogeniture in succession and that this custom or usage was reasonable and consistent with public policy.
9. – The appellant denied the plaintiffs’ claim that the estate was joint family property of Venkatadri Appa Rao and his descendants and that it was subject to the ordinary Hindu law applicable to such property.
10. – The appellant sought for the dismissal of the suits filed by the plaintiffs and prayed for the validation of the alienations made by him.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

1. Due to its tenure, the Karvetinagar Estate can be alienated, and the Zamindar is free to alienate any portion of the estate.
2.  Around 120 years ago, the British government ended the military tenure under which the properties were held and established a new tenure with explicit alienation powers.
3.  Because impartibility logically leads to the existence of a power of alienability rather than a rule of inalienability, the analogy that the incident of impartibility attaches to game estates is misleading.
4. The custom of impartibility and single-owner succession are incidents that are connected not to the property owned by a family but to the family’s legal system.
5. Any portion of the Zamindar’s estate could be taken from him for any purpose he saw fit, and his heirs would be bound by the results.
6.  The Zamindar had alienated portions of his estate to a number of people, including some of the defendants and their predecessors in title, but none of his heirs challenged these alienations.
7.  The plaintiff, Zamindar, had acknowledged and confirmed some of his predecessors’ alienations and had rented from some of the alienees.
8.  In addition, the plaintiff Zamindar had granted certain beneficiaries alienations of portions of his estate and mortgages over other portions.
9. The respondents, who were either alienees or tenants under the alienees, denied the plaintiff Zamindar any right to seize possession of the contested villages.
10.  Because it was not filed within 12 years of the date of the alienations or the date that the defendants denied the plaintiff’s title, the suit was barred by limitation.

JUDGEMENT 

The case of Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu vs Subbaraya Pillai and Ors. was a landmark case in Indian legal history that dealt with the question of the alienability of Zamindari estates. The plaintiff Zamindar of Karvetinagar claimed that his estate was inalienable by virtue of its tenure or by a custom that prohibited him from alienating any portion of the estate, except for purposes for which the manager of a joint Hindu family was entitled to do so. He sued to recover possession of certain villages that had been alienated by his predecessors in favour of various persons, including some of the defendants and their predecessors-in-title. He also claimed that the suit was not barred by limitation as he had brought it within 12 years from the date when he attained majority.

The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. They denied that the Karvetinagar Estate was inalienable by virtue of its tenure or by a custom. They asserted that the Zamindar had full power to alienate any portion of his estate for any purpose he thought fit and such alienations were valid and binding on his successors. They also pleaded that the plaintiff Zamindar had himself recognized and confirmed some of the alienations made by his predecessors and had received rent from some of the alienees. They further pleaded that the plaintiff Zamindar had also made some alienations of portions of his estate in favour of some persons and had executed mortgages over some other portions. They finally pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not brought within 12 years from the date of the alienations or from the date when the plaintiff’s title was denied by the defendants.

The Madras High Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Zamindar and upheld the validity of the alienations made by his predecessors. The High Court held that the Karvetinagar Estate was alienable by virtue of its tenure and there was no custom that prohibited the Zamindar from alienating any portion of the estate. The High Court relied on the history and nature of Zamindari estates in general and on the evidence and circumstances of this particular case. The High Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not brought within 12 years from the date of the alienations or from the date when the plaintiff’s title was denied by the defendants.

The plaintiff Zamindar appealed to the Privy Council against the judgement of the High Court. The Privy Council affirmed the judgement of the High Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff Zamindar. The Privy Council agreed with the High Court that the Karvetinagar Estate was alienable by virtue of its tenure and there was no custom that prohibited the Zamindar from alienating any portion of the estate. The Privy Council also agreed with the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not brought within 12 years from the date of the alienations or from the date when the plaintiff’s title was denied by the defendants.

The case of Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu vs Subbaraya Pillai and Ors. established an important principle that Zamindari estates were not inalienable by virtue of their tenure or by a custom, unless there was clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise. The case also showed that Zamindars had full power to alienate any portion of their estates for any purpose they thought fit and such alienations were valid and binding on their successors, unless there was a specific restriction imposed by law or contract. The case also illustrated that suits to recover possession of Zamindari estates were subject to limitation laws and had to be brought within 12 years from

the date when they accrued or when they were denied.

CONCLUSION 

The conclusion of the case Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu vs Subbaraya Pillai and Ors. was that the plaintiff Zamindar failed to recover possession of the villages in dispute from the defendants who were either alienees or tenants under the alienees. The case established an important principle that Zamindari estates were not inalienable by virtue of their tenure or by a custom, unless there was clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise. The case also showed that Zamindars had full power to alienate any portion of their estates for any purpose they thought fit and such alienations were valid and binding on their successors, unless there was a specific restriction imposed by law or contract. The case also illustrated that suits to recover possession of Zamindari estates were subject to limitation laws and had to be brought within 12 years from

the date when they accrued or when they were denied.

The impact of the case was that it clarified the legal status and rights of Zamindars and their alienees in relation to Zamindari estates. The case also had implications for the land reforms and abolition of the Zamindari system that took place in India after independence. The case also influenced the development of jurisprudence on property rights, custom, tenure, limitation and succession in India.

written by  Sahitya Shukla intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin