TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in of history rose to find India free, the constellation of princedoms fused into Independent India's democratic geography. Cochin and Travancore finally fell in with this trend. As a first step they were integrated into the Travancore-Cochin State which came into being on July 1, 1949. Two days before this constitutional merger, the Maharaja of Cochin issued a Proclamation to provide for the impartibility, administration and preservation of the Royal Estate and the Palace Fund through a Board of Trustees. A small process of family legislation on the Cochin Palace followed the political transformation of the State. The Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate and the palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961 (Actt 16 of 1961) was the first, the primary purpose of which was to undo the impartibility of the royal estate as declared by the Proclamation of 1949. The shares of the members, the mode of division and the machinery for partition were statutorily prescribed by Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act. The basics of those two sections were that on a majority of the major members of the royal family expressing their wish to be divided, the Maharaja would consider whether it was in the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1949, if we briefly recapitulate, commended the Constitution by His Highness the Maharaja of a five-man Board of Trustees charged with the plenary task of 'administration, management and conservation' of the 'Estate' and 'Palace Fund'. Act 16 of 1961 brought about a degree of economic democratisation while preserving some of the special legal habiliments of the royal estate. The Board nominated under the earlier Proclamation was continued but its responsibilities were broadened to include partitioning of the Kovilakam assets if a majority of major members-the voice of Palace democracy- asked for division and the Maharaja deemed it desirable in the interests of the family. This was a half way house between the impartible old and partible-at-will new. A short provision of great relevance to the issue of constitutionality is to be found in Section 7. The public policy behind this Section excluding civil court jurisdiction is not merely the special situation of the former royal family but the virtual impossibility within a life-time of division by metes and bounds and allotment of shares to the 800 odd members, most of whom are little royalties in rags, home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Hindu Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978) came to be passed whereby division of the Kovilakam assets was freed from the Maharaja's subjectivism and made a mandate of the statute, in tune with the common trend. The modus operandi to work out partition was the Board and no specific prescription regarding the shares of members is given. No appeal from the partition effected by the Board is specified and Sections 4 and 5 of Act 16 of 1961 are deleted retrospectively. A quick glance at the provisions gives the impression that the legislature merely equated the right in partition of the junior members of the Kovilakam with that of the commonalty of marumakkattayam families save that instead of the Civil Court the division by metes and bounds was to be carried out by the Board which was already in management and was familiar with the features of the family and the assets. A closer look, in the light of the constitutional challenge which was repelled by the High Court, leaves us cold, hot submissions to burn down the allegedly arbitrary and irresesonable legislation notwithstanding. Let us dissect the anatomy of the Amending Act of 1978. Be it remembered that Act 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 5 arrogates to the Maharaja of Cochin the power to exclude any properties from the category of partible estate. No democrat will shed a tear if Section 5 were deleted. The members, as Shri Govindan Nair himself urged, were mostly indigent. If that were so, the infliction upon such members by the Maharaja's act of exclusion of as many properties as he thought should not be divided would be unjust. Since every member was entitled to an equal share with the Maharaja himself all the properties should be available for partition and this result, which is eminently just, is achieved by the omission of Section 5 from Act 16 of 1961. Therefore, the provision in Act 15 of 1978 omitting Section 5 from the principal Act is a virtue to be commended, not a vice to be condemned. It is eminently reasonable and to contend against it is obviously unreasonable. A different criticism has been made regarding the deletion of Section 4 by Shri Govindan Nair; but it is equally mis-conceived, if we may say so. Section 4 of Act 16 of 1961 provided for the share of members including those en ventre sa mere. This provision was deleted because its purpose was otherwise served by the substituted Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he advantageous alternative of a civil suit where the shares were fixed according to law, the properties were valued by a Commissioner, objections to the report of the Commissioner were considered by the Court and a decree, preliminary or final, was subject to appeal and further appeal. The judicial process was a great guarantee of the rights of parties which was unavailable before the statutorily immunised and potentially eccentric Board of Trustees. We remained unmoved by this sombre picturisation made up of illusory apprehensions. We have earlier pointed out that the strength of the Cochin Royal family is around 800. The properties consist of urban lands, rural lands, buildings and other assets considerable in volume and value. A litigative resolution of the conflicts among members with the plethora of interlocutory proceedings plus revisions and appeals may be an endless adventure which would surely bankrupt the poorer members and deny to everyone a share in the properties by metes and bounds for a generation to come. Of course, those who are already in possession of properties-and counsel for the respondent hinted that the petitioners belong to this category-would benefit by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gill's case(2). This Court has gone to the extent of holding that natural justice require reasons to be written for conclusions made. The Organo Chemical Industries Anr. v. Union of India Anr.(1) this Court has held that the absence of a right of appeal does not spell arbitrariness. It is further held in the same ruling that giving of reasons for conclusions is ordinarily an important component of natural justice in quasi-judicial tribunals. In short, every facility that a party will reasonably receive before a quasi-judicial body when rights are adjudicated upon, will be available before this Board and we mandate it to extend such facilities and opportunities. We need hardly mention that when properties are sold parties must be intimated and the principles embedded in the Partition Act must be taken note of when properties are valued and allotted. The services of valuers of properties or of Commissioners must also be used. Moreover, parties must be given opportunity to object to reports of Commissioners, if any, appointed. In short, the general law, processual and substantive, bearing on allotment of properties cannot be thrown to the winds by the Board merely because Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
