THE PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD v. RAMA VERMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN & ORS

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 187

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, D.A. DESAI, A.D. KOSHAL

Case summary

The result is that when the 1976 Act was enforced in its original form the Estate continued to be impartible and, therefore, there was no question of section 4(2) of that Act being applicable to it....

Judgment text

1 8'l THE PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD v. RAMA VERMA BHARATIIAN THAMPURAN & ORS. March 27, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA ! YER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ. J Review-when the Court would review its earlier judgment-earlier judq· ment clarified. PER KRISHNA IYER AND DESAI JJ. In a petition for review, once a clear error in the judgment is revealed no sen,! le of shame or infallibility complex absesses or dissuades this Court fiom the anxiety to be ultimately right, not consistently wrong. [189 HJ Three points were raised for review of the earlier judgment. !. The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) governs the erstwhile ruling family of former Cochin State and observations of this Court giving a contrary in1pression may be modified. 2. -The observations of the Court that the Board is composed of the heads or seniormost members of the four branches of the family is not wholly cor· rect. 3.

The order of this Court dated 30th July, 1979 should not have the intent and effect . of nullifying the enormous amount of work and considerable steps taken by the Board so far for partitioning the properties of the family. [193 A-CJ } 1. (a) The second point arising out of three reliefs mentioned above was . an inconsCquential error which has crept in by oversight. The statement in the judgment that "the Board, being an old institution in plenary management since 1949 and wisely composed of the seniormost members of the four branches . ....... " \Vas not correct because the Board \Vas constituted by the Royal Proclamation of 1124 and continued by later Acts. [193 DJ (b) The Cochin Maharaja had the power to nominate the five trustees p of the Board and there was no objection on him to choose the seniormost ~embers of the Thavashies. What he had to comply with was the directh'e in section 4 to secure representation so far as possible for each of the four main Thavashies.

It is sufficient if its composition secures fair representation so fer as possible for each of the four Thavashies of the family. The senior~ most need not necessarily be chosen. The Board which has been functioning all these decades is beyond legal cavil and has been rightly eonstituted. (193 G] • 2. (a) The first relief telescopes into the third. From the materials on . ,. _ record it is quite clear that the Board had done good and satisfactory work especially because competent engineers and valuers have been pressed into • s~ice. A retired judge of ! he High Court has been playing the role of a mentor and a small committee of members has democratised and legitimated th. e process of partition by participation. There is no reason to sweep off the work of valuation done all these years. ,The argument that the Board's labours shmtld be liquidated cannot be acceded to.

The valuation the Board has carried out, the alienations it has effected Qnd provisional allotments it has made will be allowed to stand only subject to the obligation to hear objections and to take follow-up action. [196 C·D] (b) It is not necessary to demolish the work done by the Board upto now. The Boards decision cannot be arbitrary. It bas to be reasonable and fair and for that purpose must comply with the opportunity· for a hearing to every sharer. Group allotn1ent may be ·permissible provided the sharers composing the groups consent. Otherwise each member is entitled to a per capita share. · If the ·Board bad made group allotments it has to be justified by practical considerations and by acceptance by the members of the group concerned. The valuation made and the sales effected must be subject to the objections of those who have not had a say in the matter.

The draft partition deed, with necessary particulars regarding properties and their value shall be made available for the inspection of the various parties- ' from the office of the Board. The Boord will consider the objections and decide them on their merits. Parties affected by such decision will be given ~ brief hearing by the Board. [196 H; 197 A-CJ 3. The 1976 Act leaves in tact, in large part, the proclamation as '\Ye11 as the 1961 Act. Section 7 of the 1976 Act expressly repeals the scheduled Acts. It also renders texts of Hindu law, customs and usages contrary to the provisions of the 1976 Act ineffective. The consequence of the omission of the Proclamation and the 1961 Act from the schedule is tbet they survive and co-exist with the 1976 Act.

The definition of joint Hindu family is wide enough to include the Cochin royal family and prima-facie section 4(2) spells a division in status and substitutes a tenancy-in-common in the place of jointness vis a vis the Cochin royal family also. This consequences can be obviated only if there is something in section 7 which compels a contrary conclusion. The omission in the repealing section of 1961 Act by itself does not render inapplicable section 4(2) which creates the division in· status. It admits of no doubt that until Act 30 of 1976 was passed, there was no partition effected by any decision of the Meharaja persuant to the 1961 Act. Thus one of the joint Hindu families which subsisted at the time of the 1976 Act was the Cochin royal family and section 4(2) could chin. Cochin. Section 3 Section 3 Maharaja ofCochin to order Partition(! ) Partition ofthe Estateandthe Palace Funp Notwithstanding anything contain· (i) The seniormost male member or ed in s.

22 of the Proclamation, the family shall within sixty days from if request in writing is made by the the date of the commencement of the majority of the major members Valiamma Thsmpuran Kovilakam and the Maharaja ofCochin is satisfied Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition) ·that in the interest of the family it and Kerala Joint Hindu Family System would be desirable to partition tho (Abolition) Amendment ! Ordinance Estate and the Palace Fund, among 1978 direct the Board to eft'ectpartition all members, he moy declare his of the Estate and the Palace Fund I 2 decision to effect a partition under his among an the members entitled to a supervision and control, and direct share ofthe Estate and thePaJaceFund the Board to proceed with the Parti- under Section 4 of the Kerala Joint tion. Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (30 Of 76) and such direction shall be published by the Board in the Gazette.

(2) The decision of the Mabaraja of (2) Ifthe seniormost male member failed Cochin under sub-section (I) shall be to direct the Board as required by subpublished by the Board in the Gazette section (1), the Board shall, on the in English and Malayalam and a copy expiry of the period specified in that of the notification shall be affixed in a sub-section proceed to effect the particonspicuou~ place at the office of the tion of the Estate and the Palace Fund Board. among the members referred to in sub-section (1)and Partition so effected shall be valid notwithstanding anything contained in section 17 of the Proclamation. After the promulgation ofthe 1978 Act therefore the Proclamation has to govern the Cochin royal family subject to section 3 of the 1961 Act as amended by the 1978 Act which would fully apply to that family "notwithstanding anything contained" in the 1978 Act or any other law for the time being in force.

Finality has thus been given to the provisions of that section which states that the partition is to be made '. "among all the members entitled to a share of the Estate and the Palace Fund under section 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (30 of 1976)". Section 4 ofthe 1976 Act is thus made specifically applicable to the Cochin royal family by reason of the amendment of section 3 of the 1961 Act by the 1978 Act; and if this be so, the crucial date for determining the number and identity of the j members of the family entitled to a share of the Estate and the Palace - · · Fund would be the 1st of December, 1976, i. e. , the date on which the 1976 Act came into force. P. B. R. Petition partly allowed.