KRISHNAKUMARI THAMPURAN Vs. PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(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.