REVATHINAL BALAGOPALA VARMA Vs. BALARAMA VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 253 of 1976 is the appellant in the appeal. THE suit is for partition and for rendition of accounts. By the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum under appeal, the suit was dismissed finding against that the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 34 and therefore holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the 1/35 share claimed in the plaint.

(2.) THE first defendant in the suit was the last Ruler of the erstwhile State of Travancore and he reigned in the State till the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin on 1st July, 1949. THE main question in issue in the suit is whether the suit properties, dealt with by the first defendant as if the properties belonged to him individually, are properties which belonged to a family consisting of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 34. Defendants 3 and 12 in the suit are the two senior female members in the family, the 3rd defendant being the junior maharani and the 12th defendant the senior Maharani of Travancore. Defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to 11 are descendants of the 3rd defendant while plaintiff and defendants 13 to 34 are the descendants of the 12th defendant. THE 12th defendant and the 3rd defendant are sisters, the 12th defendant being the elder sister. At the time of the demise of His Highness Sreemoolam Thirunal, the previous Maharaja of the State of Travancore , the first defendant, who, as the senior most male member of the family, was entitled to ascend to the Throne of Travancore, was a minor. THE 12th defendant functioned as the Regent of the Maharaja until the first defendant, on attaining majority, ascended to the Throne. On 1-7-1949 with the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin the first defendant ceased to be the maharaja. He was the Rajapramukh of the State of Travancore-Cochin until the formation of Kerala State on 1-11-1956.

(3.) IT may also be necessary to mention that when the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into force the 1st defendant filed a statement as to lands held by him which statement concerned the plaint A schedule properties. This was filed by him in the status of an unmarried adult person. Evidently on the basis that all the properties belonged to him and him alone, after setting apart for him lands which could be held by him in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act including lauds exempt under the Act, the Kerala Land Board, Trivandrum by its proceedings dated 15-2-1972 declared excess lands which were to be surrendered to the Government. According to the plaintiff he was a minor on the date of these proceedings and therefore he could not contest the same. He filed a revision petition before the High Court later, under S. 103 of the Kerala land Reforms Act, against the Land Board's order dated 15-2-1972 directing surrender of excess land. On the ground that the petition was belated it was dismissed by the High Court. He therefore filed a petition under S. 85 (9) of the land Reforms Act praying to set aside the order of the Land Board dated 15-2-1972 and that petition was rejected by the Board by order dated 7-8-1976. Thereupon the Government assumed possession of all excess lands as determined in the order of the Land Board dated 15-2-1972.