LexTHE PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD versus RAMA VERMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
}
•
.,._
•
1 8 'l
THE PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD
A
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·
B
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
c
or seniormost members of the four branches of the family is not wholly cor·
D
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
E
(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]
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
B
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1980] 3 s.c.R.
A
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
' c
D
E
F
G
H
(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 hear-
ing 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 omis-
sion of the ProcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.