Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The facts of this case once again proves that time is a great leveller. A member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family, the head of which, the Maharaja of Cochin, once ruled part of the present Kerala State, has come down to the earth and is fighting for rights in family property just like lesser mortals. Stage by stage, the members of the royal family lost their pre-eminent position in the society and have now become very ordinary citizens, which is exemplified by this case.

2. With the advent of democracy, the Monarch lost his Kingdom and throne. Still, the family was not subject to all the personal laws of the land. By virtue of Sub-section (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, which applied to all the other Hindus in the country, properties of the Cochin Royal Family, which is known as Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund were exempted from the purview of the said Act, although the members of the family were Hindus. By virtue of Proclamation IX of 1124 dated 29th June, 1949, the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund which were the Joint Hindu Family properties of the Cochin Royal Family were impartiable and were administered by the Palace Administration Board created by the said proclamation promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin. Later on, by the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961, (for short 'the Partition Act') Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which exempted the said estate and palace fund from the purview of the Hindu Succession Act, was omitted with effect from the date of execution of the partition deed in respect of the family properties under Section 6 of the above said Partition Act. Later on, after the enactment of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, the Partition Act was again amended amending certain provisions of the Act so as to make it in consonance with the change of law on account of the enactment of Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976. However, the members of the Royal Family did not have the right available to ordinary citizens in so far as by virtue of Section 7 of the Partition Act, they had no right to institute a suit for partition of the estate and the palace fund. It is in view of the embargo contained in that section, this Original Petition has come up before this Court, which essentially is in the nature of a suit for partition.

3. The facts of this case makes interesting reading. The 1st petitioner in this Original Petition, namely, Smt. Krishnakumari Thampuran is a member of the Cochin Royal Family. She originally married a Namboodiri and begot a male child in that wedlock. Later on, while the said husband was still alive, without obtaining divorce, the 1st petitioner married a Muslim and begot two children in that marriage, who are petitioners 2 and 3 in this Original Petition. Essentially, this Original Petition relates to the claim of petitioners 2 and 3, the children of the 1st petitioner, in her illegitimate marriage, for share in the family properties, namely, the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund in accordance with the Partition Act. While the Palace Administration Board denies the right of petitioners 2 and 3 as members of the Cochin Royal Family, the petitioners claim that they are members of the Thavazhi of their mother and as such are entitled to equal shares in the family properties just like any other member of the family.

4. Before going into the legal issues raised, let us recapitulate the provisions of law applicable on the subject. By virtue of the proclamation of the Maharaja of Cochin promulgated on 29th June, 1949, the administration of the estate and the palace fund treated as per the proclamation vested with the Palace Administration Board the 1st respondent herein. As I have already mentioned earlier, originally, by virtue of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Succession Act, the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund administered by the Palace Administration Board and the family properties were not partible also. In 1961, the Kerala Legislature enacted the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961, to make provision for the partition of the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and Palace Fund belonging to the family of the Maharaja of Cochin. The provisions relating to such partition in the said Act, relevant for our purpose were originally contained in Sections 3 to 7 of the said Act which read as follows:

6. The petitioners, relying on Section 16, claim that by virtue of that section, even if illegitimate, petitioners 2 and 3 have to be regarded as legitimate and therefore they should be treated on par with other coparceners of the Cochin Royal Family, thus becoming entitled to equal share in the property, they having been born in 1969 and 1970, much before the Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act and the Amendment Act 15 of 1978 of the Partition Act. The petitioners would submit that by virtue of the decision of Smt. Paravankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and Ors. v. K. Devi and Ors. , the illegitimate children of a Hindu woman have to be treated as legitimate for all practical purposes including succession to the properties of their parents. According to counsel for the petitioners, if the petitioners are entitled to succeed to the properties of their parents, then they would be more so entitled to shares in the family properties where they can claim equal rights in the family properties by their own right along with the legitimate children of the family. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners further relies on the decisions of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni @ Moopil Nayar v. State of Madras and Ors. , Gopalan Nambiar v. Kunhi Amma reported in 1971 KLT 921, Rasala Surya Prakasarao and Ors. v. Rasala Venkateswararao and Ors. as also the decision of Narayani v. Aravindakshan, . These decisions, except the Andhra Pradesh decision, do not directly deal with the right of illegitimate children to succeed to coparcenery property. However, heavily relying on the Andhra Pradesh decision, which does relate to succession of illegitimate children to the coparcenery property, counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proposition that illegitimate children are, by their own right, entitled to claim shares in the coparcenery property along with legitimate children is a logical extension to the principle laid down in P.E.K. Kalliani Amma's case (supra). He would also point out that the Supreme Court has categorically held the amendment to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act which came into force in 1976, giving rights to illegitimate children along with legitimate children as retrospective and therefore the principle laid down therein would apply to the petitioners, although they were born in 1969 and 1970.