1980 (3) TMI 263 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies 1976 Act application to Cochin royal family, directs fair partition, and review process

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

The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, clarifying the applicability of the 1976 Act to the Cochin royal family, correcting the Board's composition ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) to the Cochin royal family.2. Correctness of the composition of the Board.3. Effect of the Supreme Court's previous order on the partitioning work done by the Board.4. Date of division in status and determination of the number of shares.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) to the Cochin royal family:The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, aimed to abolish the joint family system among Hindus in Kerala, converting joint family ownership into tenancy-in-common. Section 4(2) of the 1976 Act specifies that from the date of the Act's enforcement (1-12-1976), joint family properties would be held as tenants in common. The Proclamation of 1124 and Act 16 of 1961, which governed the Cochin royal family, were not repealed by the 1976 Act. The 1978 Act further amended the 1976 Act and the 1961 Act, emphasizing the continued applicability of the Proclamation and the 1961 Act to the Cochin royal family. Thus, the family was divided in status as of 1-12-1976, with shares determined per capita, including unborn children as specified in Section 4 of the 1961 Act.2. Correctness of the composition of the Board:The Supreme Court acknowledged an error in its previous judgment regarding the composition of the Board. The earlier judgment incorrectly stated that the Board was composed of the seniormost members of the four branches of the family. The correct position, as per Section 4 of the Proclamation, is that the Board consists of five trustees nominated by the Maharaja, ensuring representation for each of the four main thavashies. The Court clarified that the Board's composition was valid and that the Board had been functioning correctly for decades.3. Effect of the Supreme Court's previous order on the partitioning work done by the Board:The Board argued that the Supreme Court's previous order nullified the extensive work done for partitioning the properties, including valuations and provisional allotments. The Court recognized the Board's substantial efforts, stating that the work done should not be wasted. However, the Court emphasized that the Board's decisions must comply with natural justice, allowing affected members to file objections. The Court directed the Board to make the draft partition deed available for inspection and to consider objections within specified timelines. The Court also suggested the possibility of appointing a judicial functionary, such as a retired judge, to review the Board's decisions if all parties agreed.4. Date of division in status and determination of the number of shares:The contentious issue was the date of division in status, which determined the number of shares and eligible members. The Board proceeded on the basis that the division in status occurred on 1-12-1976, resulting in 719 members. The opposing parties argued that the division occurred on 6-1-1978, the date of the 1978 Act's promulgation, potentially increasing the number of members. The Court concluded that the division in status occurred on 1-12-1976, as per the 1976 Act, and that the 1978 Act's amendments did not alter this date. The Proclamation and the 1961 Act continued to apply, with the Board responsible for partitioning the properties based on the shares determined as of 1-12-1976.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the review petition in substantial part, clarifying the applicability of the 1976 Act to the Cochin royal family, correcting the error regarding the Board's composition, and ensuring that the Board's partitioning work complied with natural justice. The Court affirmed that the division in status occurred on 1-12-1976, with the Board responsible for effecting the partition based on this date.