IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1907 of 2006(A)
1. KRISHNAKUMARI THAMPURAN,
... Petitioner
2. SABU T.M., S/O.KRISHNAKUMARI THAMPURAN,
3. SALI T.M., S/O.KRISHNAKUMARI THAMPURAN,
Vs
1. THE PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :S.C FOR PALACE ADMN.BOARD
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
-------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
GIRI, J.
An issue arising from a claim for partition
intractably pursued by a member of the erstwhile Cochin
Royal Family in the first instance and thereafter by her two
sons born out of her relationship with a person professing
a different religion, has given rise to this litigation. No
doubt, the issues have become more perplexing due to the
peculiar nature of the property involved, firstly by the fact
that the personal law applicable to the members of the
erstwhile Cochin Royal Family was the Marumakkathayam
Rules of inheritance; secondly on account of the
successive statutory interventions applicable to the system
of Joint Hindu Family in the State as a whole, and
sometimes applicable to the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family.
We will recapitulate the bare essential facts necessary to
understand the issues arising for consideration.
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 2 ::
2. The first appellant [now deceased], was a
member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family. She married
a Namboodiri and a male child was born in the wedlock.
Later, during the lifetime of her husband and during the
subsistence of the marriage, she entered into a
relationship with a Muslim and begot two children, viz.,
appellants 2 and 3.
3. The claim, which is adjudicated in this appeal
was one which was raised on behalf of appellants 2 and 3,
who are the children of the first appellant, born to a
Muslim. The claim was pursued qua a share in the
properties which belong to the erstwhile Cochin Royal
Family. It may noted, at the outset, that the claim raised
by the first appellant, now deceased, as regards her share
in the erstwhile Joint Hindu Family properties was
entertained and satisfied, though the first appellant earlier
had expressed a dissatisfaction regarding the quantum of
the share allotted to her in this regard. As noted by the
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 3 ::
learned single Judge, that claim was not pursued by the 1st
appellant.
4. The statutes applicable to the properties in
question regulating its division and succession are peculiar
and it is necessary to refer to the law in question. Finding
that the members in the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family, are
quite numerous and also finding that the properties
available were not, at the same time, getting enlarged, the
then Ruler of Cochin Sri.Rama Varma promulgated a
proclamation on IX/1124, corresponding to 29th June,
1949 in relation to the administration and management
and conservation of the properties of the Valiamma
Thampuram Kovilakom Estate and Palace Fund. Clause 2
(bb)(c) and 3(1) of the said proclamation are relevant and
are, therefore, extracted hereunder:
“2(bb) ‘family; means the marumakkathayam joint
family consisting of the four main travazhies
of the Ruler, of the former state of Cochin
within the meaning of Clause (22) of Article
266 of the Constitution of India.”
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 4 ::
3(1) The Estate and the Palace Fund shall vest in
a Board to be called "The Palace
Administration Board” and such Board shall
administer the Estate and the Palace Fund
subject to the provisions of this
Proclamation.”
5. Clause 13 of the proclamation provided that
the Board shall administer the properties and palace fund
as carefully as an ordinary prudent man deals with his
properties or fund. What is to be noted, insofar as the
proclamation is concerned, is the vesting of the Estate and
Palace Fund in the Palace Administration Board and the
power available to the Board under Clause 21 thereof,
extended to acquisition of movable and immovable
properties and leasing out any movable property
belonging to the estate. No other alienation could be
effected by the Board. No other member of the family was
considered to have any other right in relation to the
property.
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 5 ::
6. It has to be noticed, at this juncture, that the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when it was enacted
specifically provided vide Section 5(iii) thereof that the Act
shall not apply to the Estate and Palace Fund administered
by the Board.
7. The next statutory intervention came in 1961
by virtue of the Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakom Estate
and Palace Fund Act {hereinafter referred to as the “VTK
Act 16/61”}. Section 3 of the said Act enabled the
Maharaja of Cochin to declare the decision to effect a
partition under his supervision and control provided he is
satisfied in that regard in the interest of the family. Under
Section 4(1), each member shall be entitled to an equal
share of the Estate and the Palace Fund and ‘Member’
means a member of the family of the Maharaja of Cochin
{vide Section 2(d) of the Act}. Section 6 of the Act provided
for the execution and registration of the deed of partition
on behalf of all the members by the Maharaja of Cochin
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 6 ::
and the members of the Board. Section 7 expressly bars
the power to institute a suit for partition of the estate and
the palace fund. Section 8 of the Act excluded the
personal privileges of the Maharaja from the purview of
the Act. Section 5(3) of the Act which shielded the
Kovilakam Estate and Palace Fund from the provisions of
the Hindu Succession Act was directed to be omitted with
effect from the execution of the partition deed under
Section 6 of the Act. The effect of 1961 Act was,
therefore, to bring about a limited partibility of the
Kovilakam Estate and Palace Fund. The restriction on
partibility was relatable to Section 3 of the Act, which still
made partition dependent on a decision to be taken by the
Maharaja of Cochin in that regard.
8. In chronological order, the next statutory
intervention came about by the Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Act, Act 30/76 {hereinafter referred to as the
“Abolition Act”}. Section 2(1) of the Abolition Act defined a
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 7 ::
‘Joint Hindu Family’ as to include a ‘tarwad’ or ‘thavazhy’
governed by the Cochin Marumakkathayam Act. Section 4
(2) of the Abolition Act is relevant in this context and it
reads as follows:
“4(2) All members of a Joint Hindu Family, other
than an undivided Hindu Family referred to in
sub-section(1), holding any Joint Family
property on the day this Act comes into
force,s hall, with effect from that day be
deemed to hold it as tenants-in-common, as
if a partition of such property per capita had
taken place among all the members of the
family living on the day aforesaid, whether
such members were entitled to claim such
partition or not under the law applicable to
them, and as if each one of the members is
holding his or her share separately as full
owner thereof.”
9. The erstwhile Royal Family of Cochin would
be a Joint Hindu Family, falling under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 4 of the Abolition Act and therefore, the
enforcement of the Act would have normally provided for a
per capita division of the family properties amongst the
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 8 ::
members of the family. But this statutory intervention was
kept at bay by reason of Section 8 of the Abolition Act,
which reads as follows:
“8. Proclamation IX of 1124 and Act 16 of
1961 to continue in force:–
Notwithstanding anything containing in this Act or in
any other law for the time being in force,
Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated the 29th June, 1949,
promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin, as amended
by the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate and
the Palace Fund (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu
Family System (Abolition) Amendment Act, 1978,
and the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate and
the Palace Fund (Partition Act, 1961 (16 of 1961), as
amended by the said Act, shall continue to be in
force and shall apply to the Valiamma Thampuran
Kovilakam Estate and the Palace Fund administered
by the Board of Trustees appointed under Section 3
of the said Proclamation.”
10. The Abolition Act was amended in 1978 by
the amendment Act 15/78. This provided for abolition of
Sections 4 and 5 of the VTK Act, by way of an amendment
of Section 3 to the following effect:
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 9 ::
3. Partition of the Estate and
Palace Fund:- (1) The seniormost
male member of the family shall,
within sixty days from the date of
commencement of the Valiamma
Thampuran Kovilakam Estate and
the Palace Fund (Partition) and the
Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Amendment Ordinance,
1978, direct the Board to effect
partition of the State and the Palace
Fund among all the members
entitled to a share of the Estate and
Palace Fund under S.4 of the Kerala
Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975 (30 of 1976),
and such a direction shall be
published by the Board in the
Gazette.
(2) If the seniormost male member fails
to direct the Board as required by
sub-section (1) the Board shall, on
the expiry of the period specified int
hat sub-section proceed to effect
the partition of the Estate and the
Palace Fund among the members
referred to in sub-section (1), and
the partition so effected shall be
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 10 ::
valid notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 17 of the
Proclamation."
11. Thus, the statutory frame work, as applicable
and available with effect from the enforcement of the
Amendment Act 15/78 could, briefly, be encapsulated as
follows:
12. The properties of the erstwhile Royal Family
of Cochin, which was earlier comprehended by the Cochin
Marumakkathayam Act and wherein the members of the
family had earlier followed the Marumakkathayam system
of inheritance came to be vested in an Estate and Fund.
Each member of the family was entitled to a share in the
property; Civil Court could not direct partition, as the
jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted. The senior most
male member of the family {as distinguished from the
erstwhile Ruler} was obliged, within 60 days from the
commencement of the Amendment Act 15/78, to direct
the Board to effect partition of the estate and the palace
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 11 ::
fund among all the members entitled to a share in terms
of Section 4 of the Abolition Act.
13. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the
two judgments of the Supreme Court which cleared the air
of considerable confusion prevailing as to the law of
succession applicable to the members of the family, the
right available to the Board to effect partition, the nature
of the powers to be exercised in that regard by the Board,
whether there was a complete ouster of jurisdiction of the
civil court to entertain claims of partition and most
importantly the date, with reference to which a member of
the family could claim a right to obtain a share in the
properties in question. In Rama Varma v. State of Kerala
{AIR 1979 SC 1918} , the Apex Court was essentially
concerned with the constitutional validity of the provisions
of the Act, 1961, juxtaposed with the provisions of the
Abolition Act. The court upheld the validity of the
provisions of the Act and held that the Board had the right
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 12 ::
to effect partition of the properties and the absence of an
appeal against the Orders of the Board is of no
consequence. The court thought it appropriate to
entertain a review preferred by the Board in relation to the
aforementioned decision and it is, therefore, that by the
decision in Palace Administration Board v.
R.V.B.Thampuran {AIR 1980 SC 1187}, the court
proceeded to hold that the definition of “Joint Hindu
Family”, as occurring in Section 4(2) of the Abolition Act, is
wide enough to include the Cochin Royal Family. It was
further held that the rule of per capita division provided
for in the 1976 Act was not contrary to the provisions of
the 1961 Act. The court positively held that the division
among the members of the erstwhile Royal Family is to be
effected according to Section 4(2) of the Abolition Act.
14. Thus, the irrefutable position which came to
prevail on the enforcement of Act 15/78, which is the
latest in the statutory intervention as considered and
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 13 ::
espoused by the Supreme Court can be stated thus: That
the properties of the erstwhile Royal Family of Cochin will
have to be treated as properties belonging to the Joint
Hindu Family as contemplated by Section 4(2) of the
Abolition Act, Act 30/76. A member of the family, as
obtaining on the date of enforcement of Act 15/78 is
entitled to a share in the said property, consequent upon a
per capita division, by enforcement of Section 4(2) of the
Abolition Act. The entitlement to a per capita share in the
said property was to be determined with reference to the
enforcement of Act 15/78. The Board, which was to
administer the partition was obliged to act in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and the power
exercised by the Board was considered as quasi judicial in
character.
15. With the above background in mind, we shall
now proceed to consider the specific contentions taken up
by the appellants.
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 14 ::
16. As stated above, the first appellant (now
deceased) a member of the erstwhile Royal Family and a
sharer in the properties of the VTK Estate and Palace Fund,
during the subsistence of a valid marriage, contracted a
relationship with a person professing another religion and
begot appellants 2 and 3 on 6.3.1969 and 25.5.1970.
Pursuant to the later decision of the Supreme Court in
Palace Administration Board v. R.V.B.Thampuran {AIR
1980 SC 1187}, the Board finalised its proceedings for
partition of the properties and the first appellant as a
member of the Cochin Royal Family was allotted a share
therein. But, it was only in 1995 that she had proceeded
to question the quantum of the share so allotted to her, as
is evident by Ext.P2 representation and thereafter she had
approached this court in O.P.No.2305/96 which was
dismissed as per Ext.P4 judgment by a learned Judge of
this court. In appeal, as evidenced by Ext.P5 judgment,
the Division Bench permitted the first appellant/petitioner
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 15 ::
to pursue Ext.P2 representation before the Palace
Administration Board, which was directed to dispose it of ,
within a time frame. The Board considered the
representation and rejected the same. Though a claim was
raised in this regard in the writ petition, it was expressly
given up before the learned single Judge.
17. The crucial issue, which was considered by
the learned single Judge and which was pursued before us
relates to the claim made on behalf of appellants 2 and 3,
the children born to the 1st appellant, in her relationship
with the father of appellants 2 and 3. As stated above,
Krishnakumari Thampuran, while being married to
Vamadevan Namboodiri, is stated to have contracted a
marriage with a person professing Islam and begot two
children, appellants 2 and 3. The question is whether
appellants 2 and 3 are entitled to a share in the properties
vested in the VTK Estate and Palace Fund, which originally
belonged to the Cochin Royal Family.
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 16 ::
18. The Board considered the contention and
rejected the same as per Ext.P7 order on two grounds.
Firstly, if appellants 2 and 3 are the illegitimate children of
Krishnakumari Thampuran, a member of the family, then a
limited right available to the children are those contained
in Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This right, it
was held, could be exercised only qua the individual
property of the parent and cannot be used to pursue a
claim in relation to a Joint Hindu Family property, like that
of the VTK Estate and Palace Fund. Reliance in this regard
was made on the decision of the Supreme Court in
P.E.K.Kalyani Amma & others v. K.Devi and others {AIR
1996 SC 1963}. The learned Judge held that the rights
available to illegitimate children under Section 16(3) of the
Hindu Marriage Act is confined only to the individual
properties of the parents and cannot be extended to
coparcenary property. Essentially, the learned single
Judge, therefore, rejected the claim of appellants 2 and 3,
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 17 ::
on the aforementioned basis. The correctness of this view
has been challenged by the appellants.
19. We heard counsel on both sides.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the properties in question are not
coparcenary in character and therefore, the view taken by
the learned single Judge on the basis of Kalyani Amma’s
case, in the context of Section 16(2) of the Hindu Marriage
Act is not correct. It is contended that, to an extent, there
is some similarity between coparcenary property and
Marumakkathayam property, inasmuch as that, in both,
succession is by survivorship. But, what is crucial, it is
contended, insofar as Marumakkathayam properties are
concerned, is that succession is traced through the female
line of descent and since there is no dispute that
appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st appellant and
it is not disputed that the first appellant is a member of
the Royal Family, and a member of the tarwad, her
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 18 ::
offspring, it is contended, per se, would also be members
of the Marumakkathayam tarwad, to which the properties
in question belong. How far is this contention sustainable?
We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the
different aspects emanating from this. The statutory
framework within which the rights of the members of the
erstwhile Royal Family of Cochin was to be regulated has
been referred to in extenso. The personal law applicable
to the parties has also been referred to. We are of the view
that, though not for the reasons which found favour with
the learned single Judge, the claim pursued by appellants
2 and 3 for a share in the properties currently vested in the
VTK Estate and Palace Fund is clearly unsustainable and
untenable.
21. There are one or two aspects relating to the
applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu
Succession Act, that requires a clarification straight away.
Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is an Act to amend and codify
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 19 ::
the law relating to marriage among Hindus. What is
crucial, insofar as the present case is concerned, is Section
2(1) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:
“2(1) This Act applies —
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion
in any of its forms or developments,
including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a
follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya
Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or
Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any other person domiciled in the
territories to which this Act extends who
is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by
religion, unless it is proved that any such
person would not have been governed by
the Hindu law or by any custom or usage
as part of that law in respect of any of
the matters dealt with herein if this Act
had not been passed.”
22. The explanation is expansive to the extent it
comprehends Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. What is
mentioned in Sub-clause (a) and (b) thereof, is thus any
child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 20 ::
Hindus, would be a Hindu. Admittedly, only one among
the parents of appellants 2 and 3 is a Hindu. The father of
appellants 2 and 3 is admittedly a Muslim and obviously,
by reason of Section 2(1)(c), the Act is not applicable to a
Muslim, Christian or a Parsi or a Jew by religion. Secondly,
as per Clause (b) coming under the explanation, any child
even illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu by
religion, could also be a Hindu, provided he has been
brought up a member of the tribe, community, group or
family to which such parent, viz., the parent who is a
Hindu belongs or belonged. Is it the case of appellants 2
and 3, that though there was no valid marriage between
first appellant and their father and therefore, they could be
considered as illegitimate in that sense, nevertheless they
are entitled to be treated as Hindus because their mother
is a Hindu and they were brought up as members of the
tribe, community, group or family to which their mother
belonged? Significantly, at no point of time did appellants
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 21 ::
2 and 3 put forward a case that they are Hindus by birth,
or that they profess the Hindu Religion or that they are
eligible or liable to be treated as Hindus by reason of the
fact that their mother is a Hindu, though their father is a
non-Hindu and that they were brought up as a member of
the community or group to which their mother belonged.
The original petition does not contain such an averment.
The claim before the Board also did not contain such a
claim. In fact, the case put forward by appellants 2 and 3
is to the effect that on the marriage between the mother,
the 1st appellant and their father, they have all been living
separately, in rented premises. They have no house of
their own and at the time of filing the writ petition, they
have been living with their wives and children. There were
no suggestions put forward, at any point of time, that
appellants 2 and 3 were brought up as members of the
community or group to which their mother belonged. It is
only appropriate to proceed on the premise that appellants
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 22 ::
2 and 3 did not, any point of time, claim that they are
Hindus.
23. In such circumstances, it is only
consequential to hold that the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act do not apply to appellants 2 and 3. Section
16 of the Act also, therefore, will not confer any right in
favour of appellants 2 and 3.
24. We are also of the view that the legitimacy of
children out of void and voidable marriage, as contained in
Section 16 of the Act is essentially in the context of Section
11 of the Act, which provides for null and void marriages.
Section 16(3) is, of course, an exception to Section 16(1) of
the Act. But the application of Section 16(1) itself would
be restricted to children born out of a marriage which are
only void in the context of Section 11 of the Act. Since the
nullity of a marriage is provided in Sections 5 of the Act, it
is clear that Section 11 would have application only in the
case of a marriage which may be solemnised between two
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 23 ::
Hindus, subject to the conditions mentioned therein viz.,
neither parties, at the time of marriage have another living
spouse, that the bridegroom has completed the age of 21
and the bride has completed the age of 18 and that the
parties are not within prohibited distance. What is
contemplated by Section 16 of the Act is a marriage, which
is null and void by reason of the contravention of the
provisions of Sections 5(i)(iii) and (iv). Neither Section 5
nor Section 11 nor Section 16 would have application to
the present case for the reason that the alleged marriage
between the 1st appellant and the father of appellants 2
and 3 is not a marriage between two ‘Hindus’. Section 5 of
the Hindu Marriage Act cannot have any application
whatsoever to the alleged marriage between the first
appellant and a Non-Hindu. It follows that neither Section
11 nor Section 16 of the Act can have any application
whatsoever. In other words, the limited rights, otherwise
made available to the illegitimate children under Section
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 24 ::
16(1) of the Act would not enure in favour of appellants 2
and 3. For the same reason, Section 16(3) of the Act
would also have no application to the case of appellants 2
and 3.
25. Similar is the situation obtaining qua the
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The clause
relating to the applicability of Hindu Succession Act is
similarly worded as that in the Hindu Marriage Act. The
said provisions would also, therefore, not comprehend
appellants 2 and 3.
26. Does it, in any manner, bring about any
improvement in the case of appellants 2 and 3? We are
afraid, not.
27. As stated above, appellants 2 and 3 are not
Hindus and therefore, cannot claim to be members of the
Marumakkathayam Joint Family, consisting of the four
main thavazhies of the Ruler of the former State of Cochin,
answering to the definition of ‘family’ in Clause 2(bb) of
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 25 ::
Proclamation 9/1124. It is only reasonable to infer that the
personal law applicable to the members of the
Marumakkathayam Joint Family comprising of the four
main thavazhies in Cochin Royal Family was the ‘Cochin
Marumakkathayam Act, Act 33/1113 (Malayalam Era). The
said Act was brought into force to reform, regulate and
amend the law of marriage, inheritance, succession, family
management, partition and adoption of communities
following Marumakkathayam. ‘Tarwad’ is defined as to
include ‘a group of persons forming joint family with
community of property governed by the
Marumakkathayam law of inheritance’. It is true that
inheritance is traced in the female line. But, what will have
to be stressed is that the line of descent, as contemplated
by the Act, will have to flow through a legitimate line.
What is equally irrefutable is that the said law was intended
to encompass and govern members of a Joint family. The
divisions of the property which came to be vested in the
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 26 ::
VTK Estate and Palace Fund is to be effected under Section
4(2) of the Abolition Act, as enjoined by Act 15/78 and
directed to be implemented by the Supreme Court in {AIR
1980 SC 1187}. The legislative intendment discernible from
the proclamation, 1961 Act. The Abolition Act, Act 30/76
followed by the Amendment Act 15/78 is therefore, clear.
It is intended to govern the members of Joint Hindu family
and it would, therefore, be wholly illogical to assume that
the legislature, by reason of the aforementioned statutory
intervention expressly referring to a Joint Hindu Family
intended to confer a benefit on a person, who does not
profess the Hindu Religion, who is not born a Hindu and
who was not brought up as a Hindu and to whom none of
the other statutes expressly comprehending persons
professing Hindu Religion (like the Hindu Marriage Act and
Hindu Succession Act) apply. It, therefore, follows that the
right to claim succession in the female line of descent,
characteristic of Marumakkathayam property is intended to
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 27 ::
confer a benefit only on such persons, who otherwise can
claim to have been born in such Marumakkathayam family,
which is also a Joint Hindu Family with a peculiar line of
succession. The requirement which, therefore, cannot
admit of any dilution to be encompassed by a law
applicable to such Joint Hindu Family, as contemplated by
Section 4(2) of the Act is that the person concerned must
be born into the said Joint Hindu Family. In other words,
he must be born a Hindu and therefore, by birth the
personal law applicable to Hindus should also, ipso facto,
be applicable to him or her, as the case may be.
28. As stated above, it is not the case of
appellants 2 and 3 that they were born Hindus or that they
are otherwise Hindus by reason of having satisfied the
parameters mentioned in Clause 2(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
29. In these circumstances, we have no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that appellants 2
W.A.No.1907 of 2006
:: 28 ::
and 3 have no right to claim any share in the property
vested in the VTK Estate and Palace Fund, the
administration of which is effected by the respondent and
governed by the provisions of 1961 Act, as amended by
Act 15/78.
We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge