REVATHINNAL BALAGOPALA VARMA versus H.H.SRI PADMANABHADASA, BALA RAMA VARMA (SINCE DECEASED) AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 28-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
REVATHINNAL BALAGOPALA VARMA 
v. 
H.H.SRI PADMANABHADASA, BALA RAMA VARMA 
(SINCE DECEASED) AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1991 
[S. RANGANATHAN, M. FATIIIMA BEEVI AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
. 
-
J/indu Law : llindu undivided fami/y-Coparceners-Rights of-Whether 
available to members of a Royal: Family in respect of personal properties of a 
sovereign ruler. 
· 
· 
, 
. 
Burden of proof-Relevancy: Claim that properties belonged to /oint 
famiiY-:.When evidence has been led, question of onus of proving that' suit 
properties were imparti/)le or otherwise renWins not-of much. importance: 
Cow:t has to decide on consideration of evidence and materials. 
: 
·Royal family of Travancore----'-Properties held.by sovereign ruler..:....Suc-
cession-Devolution of properties on successive rulerS-:-Joint family nucleus 
to the.properties not established surrender of sovereigniy and State properties .· 
to Government of lndi~etention of certain properties by Maharajah as his 
personal properties--Suitfor partition-Maintainability of' Whether the prop-
erties can be said to be of the family to which the sovereign belonged. ' · 
' 
. 
. 
Joint fami/Y"-f'artition-Presumptio~Whethe_r partition is full and 
complete. 
"Sthanam"-lmportant characteristics explained. 
Sovereign ruler-:Succession and powers-Explained. 
State and public properties and Private properties of a sovereign ruler-· 
Whether are distinct. 
Travancore Kshatriya Regulation, 1108: J/indu Succession Act, 1956, 
section 7:Kerala Joint llindu Family System (Abolition) Act,1975,s.4 
G - whether applicable to members of Royal Family ofTravancorefor purposes 
of partition of properties held by Maharajah of Travancore as his personal 
properties at the time of surrender of his sovereignty and State properties to 
the Government of India. 
H 
-fi:'ai:tice· and Procedure : 
Plea not raised in trial court-Whether can be entertained at appellate 
stage. 
30 
. 
' 
>-----
,_ 
BALAGOPALA VARMA v. BALARAMA VARMA 
31 
--+ 
"*' 
... 
· 
.,., 
Respondent· no~ 1 in Civil Appeal No. 534/83, till the integration of A 
i. 
. ><. 
.,,,_ 
the States of Travancore and Cochin on 1.7.1949, was the SO".ereign ruler 
of the erstwhile State of Travan~ore and in that capacity he held several 
items Qf properties which had been inherited by him from his predecessor 
Maharajahs. He also acquired some properties after he had become the 
Maharajah. The cost of the properties so acquired had been met from the 
State coffers, there being no distinction until 1949 between the funds 
B 
belonging to a Ruler in his individual capacity and those beionging to the 
· Sfate. At the time of surrender of his sovereignty and the State properties 
to the Government oflndia, in pursuance of the Covenant dat_ed 27.5.1949, 
he retained certain properties as his personal properties. 
The appellant instituted a suit for 'partition and rendition of ac-
counts alleging that he and respondents no. l to 34 (defendants no. 1to34 
in the suit respectively) were members of the Travancore Royal Fainily 
which was an undivided 'Maruinakkathaya~Tarwad', knoWn as V~likot­
taram, governed by Marumakkathayam law as modified by custont and . 
usage in respect of succession, inheritance etc., and respondent no. 1 as the 
Karnavan had been managing the tarwad properties which were Hable to 
. 
. 
-
.. 
be partitioned among the appellant and respondents no. 1 to 34 on per 
c 
D 
capita basis and the appellant was entitled to a 1/~th share therein; that 
the proceeds received by way of alienation of some of th~ pr:operties made 
by respondent no. 1 be divided amongst the members of the tarwad. He 
also prayed for a decree with regard to his share in the. income of the 
tarwad properties received by respondent no. 1 as its Karnavan. 
·E 
Before the institution of the partition suit, respondent no. 1 filed 
return in respect of the suit properties before the ceiling authorities, and 
the Kerala Land Board, accepting the_properties to be of respondent no. 
1, declared some of them as surplus. The appellant challenged that order 
in revision before the High Court contending that since the properties 
were tarwad properties, they were to be treated as belonging to different 
families which constituted independent units in the tarwad, and could not 
b~. taken as surplus with respondent no. 1. The revision was dismissed by 
the _High Court as belated. The appellant thereafter filed an application 
under section 85(9) of the Kerala Land R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.