{"id":186491,"date":"1979-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979"},"modified":"2016-05-19T16:41:00","modified_gmt":"2016-05-19T11:11:00","slug":"rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","title":{"rendered":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1918, \t\t 1980 SCR (2) 136<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMA VERMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/07\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nDESAI, D.A.\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1918\t\t  1980 SCR  (2) 136\n 1979 SCC  (4) 782\n\n\nACT:\n     Valiamma Thampuram\t Kovilakam  Estate  and\t the  Palace\n(Partition)  and   the\tKerala\tJoint  Hindu  Family  System\n(Abolition)  Amendment\t Act,  1978   (Act  15\t of   1978),\nconstitutional validity of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Maharaja of Cochin, reigned and ruled over a pretty\nState, Cochin,\twhich is  now an integral part of the Kerala\nState. The  Travancore-Cochin State  came into being on July\n1, 1949.  Two days  before this\t constitutional merger,\t the\nMaharaja of  Cochin issued a Proclamation to provide for the\nimpartibility, administration  and preservation of the Royal\nEstate and  the Palace\tFund through  a\t Five-man  Board  of\nTrustees. A  small Process  of\tfamily\tlegislation  on\t the\nCochin Palace  followed the  political transformation of the\nState. The first was the Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate\nand the\t Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961 (Act 16 of 1961),\nthe primary  purpose of\t which was to undo the impartibility\nof the\tRoyal Estate,  as declared  by the  Proclamation  of\n1949. Sections\t4 and  5 of the Act prescribed the shares of\nthe members,  the mode\tof division  and the  machinery\t for\npartition under these provisions, on a majority of the major\nmembers of  the royal  family expressing  their wish  to  be\ndivided, the  Maharaja would  consider whether it was in the\ninterest of  the family\t to partition  the estate  among the\nmembers and,  if he  did, direct  the Board  of Trustees  to\nproceed\t with\tthe  partition\tunder  his  supervision\t and\ncontrol. Each  member including\t  en  ventra  sa  mere,\t was\neligible for  a single\tshare on  an equal  basis. The Board\nnominated under\t the earlier  Proclamation was continued but\nits responsibilities  were broadened.  The privileges of the\nMaharaja were preserved as his personal rights but vis-a-vis\nfamily assets feudal \"primogeniture\" fell to modern egalite,\nwithin\tlimits.\t  As  a\t result\t of  the  26th\tConstitution\nAmendment  Act\t of  1971   which  extinguished\t  all  royal\nprivileges,  privy   purses  and   other  dignities  of\t the\nerstwhile rulers  of the  Indian States, the Cochin Maharaja\nstepped down  to the  level of\tthe Karta  of a\t Joint Hindu\nFamily.\t  The\t Marummakkattayam   system   which   ensured\nimpartibility and  management by  the senior most member had\nlost its  functional value  and virtually  vanished from the\nKerala coast  with the\tpassing of  the Kerala\tJoint  Hindu\nFamily System  (Abolition)  Act,  1975\t(Act  30  of  1976).\nDespite this  revolutionary change,  the Cochin royal family\nmaintained its\tformer status  as Marummakkattayam undivided\ncoparcenary since  it was  governed by\tspecial\t legislation\nwhich remained unrepealed. Therefore, the Kerala Legislation\nenacted the  Valiamma Thampuram\t Kovilakam  Estate  and\t the\nPalace Fund  (Partition) and  the Kerala  Joint Hindu Family\nSystem (Abolition)  Amendment Act,  1978 (Act  15 of  1978).\nBefore the High Court and in the special leave petition, the\nvires of the Amending Act omitting sections 4 and 5 from the\nPrincipal Act  16\/1961 was  challenged as offending Articles\n14 and 19 of the Constitution.\n     Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court,\n137\n^\n     HELD:  The\t public\t policy\t behind\t Section  7  of\t the\nValiamma Thampuram  Kovilakam Estate  and  the\tPalace\tFund\n(Partition) Act, 1961, excluding civil court jurisdiction is\nnot merely  the special situation of the former royal family\nbut the virtual impossibility within a life-time of division\nby metes  and bounds  and allotment of shares to the 800 odd\nmembers, most  of whom\tare real royalties in rags, homeless\nand hungry,  seeking to survive by the small pieces from the\nlarge cake if ever it will be sliced and distributed. [141A-\nB]\n     Civil litigation for partition is the surest punishment\nto the\ttattered 'princelings'\tby pauperizing\tthem through\nthe justice  process and giving them stones instead of bread\nin the\tend, if\t the end would arrive at all. The compulsive\npragmatics  of\tdistributive  justice  elicited\t legislative\ncompassion for\tthis uniquely  numerous crowd  of pauperised\npatricians by  exclusion of  civil courts  jurisdiction. The\npathology of  protracted, exotic processual legalistic needs\ncomprehensive renovation if the Justice System is to survive\nbut the\t legislature salvaged  the largest royal family with\nthe littlest  individual resources  without waiting  for the\nremote undertaking  to overhaul\t Processual Justice  to\t the\nPeople. Sociology  is the  mother of  law, lest\t law in\t the\nbooks should be bastardized by the law of life. [141D-F]\n     2. Our constitutional order is sensibly and sensitively\nallergic to  arbitrary power  and  the\tSupreme\t Court\twill\nunhesitatingly\tstrike\tdown  any  provision  which  can  be\nanathematised as  creating uncanalised\tand Neronised power.\nSection 4 of the Principal Act of 1961 provided for an equal\nopportunity for\t every member  including those\ten ventre sa\nmere. This  provision was  deleted because  its purpose\t was\notherwise served  by the  substituted Section 3 of Act 16 of\n1961 by\t including a  direction\t to  the  Board\t \"to  effect\npartition of  the Estate  and the  Palace Fund among all the\nmembers entitled  to a share\"..................under Section\n4 of  the Kerala  Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act,\n1975 (Act  30 of  1976).\" The  effect of  the importation of\nSection 4  of the  Abolition Act  is to ensure partition per\ncapita among all the members as in the case of a Joint Hindu\nFamily other than an undivided mitakshara Hindu family. What\nwas otiose,  namely, Section  4 of  Act 16  of 1961, was cut\nout. This  was merely  a drafting  operation not  making any\nchange in the substantive law bearing upon the shares of the\nmembers. The contention that by this deletion the members of\nthe Kovilagam  had been made over as hostages to the caprice\nof  the\t  Board\t of   Trustees\tis   a\tfrightful  error  or\ndisingenuous scare. [142-F-G, 143H, 144A-B]\n     3. Section\t 5 of the 1961 Act arrogated to the Maharaja\nof Cochin  the power  to exclude  any  properties  from\t the\ncategory of  partible estate.  If most\tmembers were  to  be\nindigent, the infliction upon such members by the Maharaja's\nact of\texclusion of as many properties as he thought should\nnot be\tdivided would  be unjust.  Since  every\t member\t was\nentitled to an equal share with the Maharaja himself all the\nproperties  should  be\tavailable  for\tpartition  and\tthis\nresult, which is eminently just, is achieved by the omission\nof Section  5 from  Act 16 of 1961. Therefore, the provision\nin Act\t15 of 1978 omitting Section 5 from the principal Act\nis a  virtue to be commended, not a vice to be condemned. It\nis  eminently  reasonable  and\tto  contend  against  it  is\nobviously unreasonable. [143D-F]\n     4. To  blaspheme the Board as an imperium in imperio, a\nlaw unto  itself and  therefore, arbitrary  is an  egregious\nerror. The Board was not a new creation\n138\nbut an old concoction brought into being by the Ruler thirty\nyears ago,  continued by the Kerala Legislature in Act 16 of\n1961 and  recognised by\t the latest amendment Act. The Board\nis a  time honoured  entity wherein  the heads\tof the\tfour\nbranches are  members and  is entrusted\t with  the  work  of\ndivision of  assets. The  Board, being an old institution in\nplenary management since 1949 and wisely composed of senior-\nmost members  of the  four branches,  is  sentimentally\t and\nfunctionally the  best instrument  to divide and distribute.\nIndeed Act  16 of  1961\t had  also  entrusted  the  task  of\npartition to  the same Board and no member had during nearly\ntwo decades challenged the wisdom of the provision. [144B-D]\n     Section 3\tof the Act 15 of 1978 does not dispense with\ncanons of fair play of natural justice and of quasi-judicial\nvalues.\t A  non-curial\tinstrumentality\t and  procedure\t for\npartitioning cannot  be\t condemned  as\tdiscriminatory.\t The\nalternative created  by the  statute is quite reasonable and\nis a  better instrument\t having regard\tto the\ttotality  of\nfactors. Law  is not  a cocoon and keeps its eyes wide awake\nto the\trealities of  life. The\t legislation in question has\ntaken note of all facts namely; (a) absence of any complaint\nagainst their  management ever\tsince the  Board's creation;\n(b) sanctification  of the  Board by the principal Act 16 of\n1961 by\t conferring powers  of partitioning  the \"Kovilagam\"\nproperties on  this very  Board; and  does nothing more What\nwas good  and valid  in 1961  could not\t become vicious\t and\ninvalid in 1978. [145 B-D, E]\n     Quasi-judicial  responsibilities  are  implied  by\t the\nstatute in  the Board's\t function and  if the Board breaches\nthese norms  and canons,  the  constitutional  remedy  under\nArticle 226  comes into\t play. After  all, the\tBoard  is  a\nstatutory body\tand not\t an executive  creature. It has been\nsaddled with effecting the rights of parties and is bound to\nact quasi-judicially.  Its deviances are not unreviewable in\nwrit  jurisdiction.   Sufficient  guidelines  are  built  in\nSection 3  and therefore  Section 3 (2) is not unbridled and\nunconstitutional. [145F-G. 146E]\n     Maneka Gandhi  v. Union  of India,<\/a> [1976] Suppl. S.C.R.\n489; M.\t S. Gill and Anr. v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R.\n621, Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. v. Union of India &\nAnr.,<\/a> [1980] 1 S.C.R. p. 61 referred to.\n     5. Absence of appeals does not jettison justice, though\noften times,  appeals are  the bane  of the  justice system,\nespecially because the rich can defeat the poor and the weak\ncan be\tbaulked of  their rights  indefinitely that way. The\nBoard  is   a  statutory  body\tand  when  it  violates\t the\nprescriptions of  the law  or otherwise\t acts arbitrarily or\nmalafide, Art. 226 of the Constitution is a corrective. [146\nF-G]\n     6. Act  15 of  1978 has  none of the characteristics of\nclass legislation  and is  on the  other hand, an equalising\nmeasure with  a pragmatic touch. The Cochin Kovilagam vis-a-\nvis  the   Kerala  State   is  sui   generis.  It  has\tbeen\nlegislatively dealt  with as  a special class throughout the\nhistory of  Kerala and\tbefore. Partitioning  of  the  royal\nfamily estates on principles similar those applicable to all\nother Kerala  Hindu Families with the only difference that a\nBoard instead  of a  Civil Court  allots shares by metes and\nbounds, is  fully justifiable  by the special circumstances.\n[147 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition
\n(Civil) No. 5863 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
139<\/span><\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  15-12-1978 of\t the
\nKerala High Court in Original Petition No. 679\/78-II.\n<\/p>\n
     N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     A. S. Nambiar for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Order of the Court was delivered by
\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J. All  the parties\t are represented  by
\ncounsel and  we have  heard them  in extenso.  We  therefore
\nproceed to pass a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
     The  princely  family  of\tCochin\twith  a\t proletarian
\nplurality of  members  has  been  the  cynosure\t of  special
\nlegislations, the  last of  which is  Act 15  of  1978,\t the
\ntarget of attack in this special leave petition. Articles 14
\nand 19\tof the Constitution have been the ammunation used by
\nthe petitioner\tin the High Court and here to shoot down the
\nlegislation as ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
     A brief  sketch of the family law of the Cochin royalty
\nmay serve to appreciate the scheme of the latest legislation
\nunder challenge.  The Maharaja\tof Cochin, reigned and ruled
\nover a\tpretty princely\t State,\t Cochin,  which\t is  now  an
\nintegral part  of the  Kerala State.  When  the\t curtain  of
\nhistory rose  to  find\tIndia  free,  the  constellation  of
\nprincedoms  fused   into  Independent\tIndia’s\t  democratic
\ngeography. Cochin  and Travancore  finally fell in with this
\ntrend. As  a  first  step  they\t were  integrated  into\t the
\nTravancore-Cochin State\t which came  into being\t on July  1,
\n1949.  Two  days  before  this\tconstitutional\tmerger,\t the
\nMaharaja of  Cochin issued a Proclamation to provide for the
\nimpartibility, administration  and preservation of the Royal
\nEstate and  the Palace\tFund through  a Board of Trustees. A
\nsmall process  of family  legislation on  the Cochin  Palace
\nfollowed the  political transformation\tof  the\t State.\t The
\nValiamma Thampuram  Kovilakam Estate  and  the\tpalace\tFund
\n(Partition) Act,  1961 (Actt  16 of 1961) was the first, the
\nprimary purpose\t of which  was to  undo the impartibility of
\nthe royal  estate as  declared by  the Proclamation of 1949.
\nThe shares  of the  members, the  mode of  division and\t the
\nmachinery  for\tpartition  were\t statutorily  prescribed  by
\nSections 4  and 5  of the  said Act. The basics of those two
\nsections were that on a majority of the major members of the
\nroyal family  expressing  their\t wish  to  be  divided,\t the
\nMaharaja would\tconsider whether  it was  in the interest of
\nthe family to partition the estate among the members and, if
\nhe did,\t direct the  Board of  Trustees to  proceed with the
\npartition under\t his supervision  and control.\tEach member,
\nincluding a  child in  the womb,  was eligible\tfor a single
\nshare on an equal basis. The privi-\n<\/p>\n
140<\/span><\/p>\n
leges of  the Maharaja\twere preserved as his personal right
\nbut vis-a-vis  family assets  feudal ‘Primogeniture’ fell to
\nmodern egalite, within limits.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  epochal legislation was the 26th Constitution
\nAmendment Act  of December 1971 which extinguished all royal
\nprivileges, privy purses and cher dignities of the erstwhile
\nrulers of  the Indian  States. With  the denudation  of\t his
\nroyal privileges  the Cochin  Maharaja stepped\tdown to\t the
\nlevel of  the karta  of a  joint Hindu\tfamily. The  royalty
\nwhich was  once a  reality became a mere memory and with the
\nstatutory injection  of democratic  rights into\t this  blue-
\nblooded family, plebeian claims for equal shares began to be
\nvoiced, especially  because the multifid of little royalties
\nof the Maharaja’s matriarchal family lived in lurid poverty,
\nas   counsel\tdistressingly\tdescribed.    Indeed,\t the
\nmarummakkattayam  system   which   at\tone   time   ensured
\nimpartibility and  management by  the senior-most member had
\nlost its  functional value  and virtually  vanished from the
\nKerala coast,  thanks to  the erosive process of legislative
\nindividualism. The  final blow\tto this system was delivered
\nby the\tKerala Joint  Hindu Family  System (Abolition)\tAct,
\n1975 (Act  30 of 1976) which fully wiped out the matriarchal
\npattern of  holding and the Hindu undivided family system in
\nthe State  of Kerala. Despite this revolutionary change, the
\nCochin royal  family  maintained  its  former  status  as  a
\nmarummakkattayam undivided coparcenary since it was governed
\nby special legislation which remained unrepealed. This regal
\nmatriarchal  survival\tlevelled  into\tthe  main-stream  of
\nproprietary life  with equal,  partible shares for young and
\nold,  like  the\t rest  of  the\tcommunity  when\t the  Kerala
\nlegislature enacted  the Valiamma Thampuram Kovilakam Estate
\nand the\t Palace Fund  (Partition) and the Kerala Joint Hindu
\nFamily System  (Abolition) Amendment  Act, 1978\t (Act 15  of
\n1978) (preceded by Ordinance No. 1 of 1978).\n<\/p>\n
     A close-up\t of this statutory scheme is necessary since
\nit is  this legislation\t which is  furiously  fusilladed  as
\nunconstitutional  by   counsel\tfor   the  petitioner.\t The
\nlegislative   Proclamation    of   1949,   if\twe   briefly
\nrecapitulate, commended the Constitution by His Highness the
\nMaharaja of  a five-man\t Board of  Trustees charged with the
\nplenary\t  task\t  of   ‘administration,\t   management\t and
\nconservation’ of  the ‘Estate’\tand ‘Palace Fund’. Act 16 of
\n1961 brought  about a  degree  of  economic  democratisation
\nwhile preserving  some of  the special\tlegal habiliments of
\nthe royal  estate. The\tBoard nominated\t under\tthe  earlier
\nProclamation was  continued but\t its  responsibilities\twere
\nbroadened to include partitioning of the Kovilakam assets if
\na majority  of major  members-the voice of Palace democracy-
\nasked for divi-\n<\/p>\n
141<\/span><\/p>\n
sion and  the Maharaja\tdeemed it desirable in the interests
\nof the\tfamily. This  was  a  half  way\t house\tbetween\t the
\nimpartible old\tand partible-at-will  new. A short provision
\nof great  relevance to\tthe issue of constitutionality is to
\nbe found in Section 7. The public policy behind this Section
\nexcluding civil court jurisdiction is not merely the special
\nsituation  of  the  former  royal  family  but\tthe  virtual
\nimpossibility within  a life-time  of division\tby metes and
\nbounds and  allotment of shares to the 800 odd members, most
\nof whom\t are little  royalties in rags, homeless and hungry,
\nseeking to  survive by\tthe small pieces from the large cake
\nif ever\t it will be sliced and distributed. The exasperating
\nlongevity of  partition litigation,  what with\tthe  present
\ncantankerous  orientation  and\tprocedural  interminability,
\npreliminary   decree,\t appeals    thereon,\tcommissions,
\nobjections, revisions, final decrees, and a ruinous crown of
\nother  interlocutory   proceedings  punctuating\t  the  suit,
\nfollowed by  inevitable appeals\t and special leave petitions
\nand the\t like, baffles\tthe humble  and baulks their hope of
\ngetting a  morsel  in  their  short  life  span.  When\tthis
\nphenomenon-an Indo-Anglican processual bequest-is compounded
\nby the calamitous fact that there are around 800 sharers and
\na variety  of  considerable  assets  to\t be  divided,  civil
\nlitigation for\tpartition is  the surest  punishment to\t the
\ntattered  ‘princelings’\t by  pauperising  them\tthrough\t the
\njustice process\t and giving  them stones instead of bread in
\nthe end,  if the  end would  arrive at\tall ! The compulsive
\npragmatics  of\tdistributive  justice  elicited\t legislative
\ncompassion for\tthis uniquely  numerous crowd  of pauperised
\npatricians by  exclusion of  civil court’s jurisdiction. The
\npathology of protracted, exotic processual legalistics needs
\ncomprehensive renovation if the Justice System is to survive
\nbut the\t legislature salvaged  the largest royal family with
\nthe littlest  individual resources  without waiting  for the
\nremote undertaking  to overhaul\t Processual Justice  to\t the
\nPeople. Sociology  is the  mother of  law, lest\t law in\t the
\nbooks should be bastardised by the law of life.\n<\/p>\n
     A radical\tmeasure\t which\tswept  off  the\t matriarchal
\nsystem and the Joint family form of estate for Hindus is the
\nnext statutory\teven which  needs mention.  Kerala Act 30 of
\n1976 (The  Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act,
\n1975), abolished  at one  stroke the  Hindu undivided family
\nand converted them into tenancies-in-common with the rule of
\none  member  one  share.  The  Cochin  ‘Kovilagam’  was\t not
\naffected because  neither Act 16 of 1961 nor the prior royal
\nproclamation  expressly\t  repealed.  But  the  individualist
\nspirit\tof   Act  30   of  1976\t invaded  the  royal  family
\nlegislatively  as   there  is\tno  basis   for\t proprietary
\nprivilege, even\t as vestiges  of past  glory, in a democracy
\ncharged with  social  justice.\tSo,  Act  15  of  1978\t(The
\nValiamma
\n142<\/span>
\nThampuram Kovilakam  Estate and\t the Palace Fund (Partition)
\nand  the   Kerala  Joint  Hindu\t Family\t System\t (Abolition)
\nAmendment Act,\t1978) came  to be passed whereby division of
\nthe  Kovilakam\t assets\t was   freed  from   the  Maharaja’s
\nsubjectivism and made a mandate of the statute, in tune with
\nthe common  trend. The\tmodus operandi to work out partition
\nwas the\t Board and  no specific\t prescription regarding\t the
\nshares of  members is  given. No  appeal from  the partition
\neffected by  the Board\tis specified and Sections 4 and 5 of
\nAct 16 of 1961 are deleted retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
     A quick  glance at\t the provisions gives the impression
\nthat the  legislature merely  equated the right in partition
\nof the\tjunior members\tof the\tKovilakam with\tthat of\t the
\ncommonalty of  marumakkattayam families save that instead of
\nthe Civil  Court the  division by metes and bounds was to be
\ncarried out by the Board which was already in management and
\nwas familiar with the features of the family and the assets.
\nA closer  look, in the light of the constitutional challenge
\nwhich was  repelled by\tthe High  Court, leaves us cold, hot
\nsubmissions  to\t  burn\tdown  the  allegedly  arbitrary\t and
\nirresesonable legislation notwithstanding.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us dissect the anatomy of the Amending Act of 1978.
\nBe it  remembered that Act 16 of 1961 (the principal Act) is
\nnot and\t has never  been attacked  as ultra  vires.  If\t the
\nprincipal Act  was good the search for the invalidatory vice
\nmust be confined to the cluster of new clauses.\n<\/p>\n
     The principal  violation  pressed\tbefore\tus  by\tShri
\nGovindan Nair  for the petitioner, who is a senior member of
\nthe family, is of Art. 14 and the customary contention, more
\neasily waged  than established, is that arbitrary, unguided,
\nnaked and  tyrannical power  is conferred  on the  Board and
\ntherefore the  whole Act is bad because the central piece of
\nthe  statutory\t scheme\t is   this  machinery.\t True,\t our
\nconstitutional order is sensibly and sensitively allergic to
\narbitrary power\t and we\t have no hesitation in striking down
\nany  provision\t which\tcan  be\t anathematised\tas  creating
\nuncanalised and\t Neronised Power.  The very  creation of the
\nBoard was  challenged as  violative of\tArt.  14  since\t the
\njurisdiction of\t the Civil  Court is  the common  forum with
\nother judicial remedies, appellate and revisional, available
\nfor the\t aggrieved party.  While the  Board is given plenary
\npower to divide and distribute with validity being conferred
\non such partition the grievance is that there are no appeals
\nand revisions and the arbitrament of the Board even if it is
\narbitrary becomes  final. This is castigated as a caprice of
\nthe legislature. More than all, the very singling
\n143<\/span>
\nout of\tthe  ruler’s  family,  populous\t though\t it  be,  is
\nanathematised as discriminatory. Incidentally, the powers of
\nthe Board  are charged\tas unreasonable\t since there  is  no
\nprovision to  give a  hearing to the affected parties in the
\nprocess of  adjudication and  the whole\t process may well be
\nthe deliberations  of a secret campaign. These violent vices
\nimputed to  the statute will certainly invalidate the Act 15
\nof 1978,  if there  were some  substance  therein.  Even  an
\nimaginative exercise,  if informed  by realism, discovers no
\nsuch infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  clear the\tconfusion caused  by the omission of
\nSections 4  and 5  of the  principal Act. Shri Govindan Nair
\nfor the\t petitioners relied on this omission to contend that
\nthe  wholesome\tprovisions  of\tsections  4  and  5  of\t the
\nPrincipal Act  of 1961 have been waywardly withdrawn leaving
\nit to  the Board to award such shares as they fancied to the
\nvarious\t members.  This\t submission  proceeds  on  a  simple
\nmisconception. Section\t4 provides  for an  equal share\t for
\nevery member  including a  child in  the womb  and Section 5
\narrogates to the Maharaja of Cochin the power to exclude any
\nproperties from the category of partible estate. No democrat
\nwill shed  a tear if Section 5 were deleted. The members, as
\nShri Govindan  Nair himself  urged, were mostly indigent. If
\nthat were  so, the  infliction\tupon  such  members  by\t the
\nMaharaja’s act\tof exclusion  of as  many properties  as  he
\nthought should\tnot be\tdivided would be unjust. Since every
\nmember was  entitled to\t an equal  share with  the  Maharaja
\nhimself all the properties should be available for partition
\nand this result, which is eminently just, is achieved by the
\nomission of  Section 5\tfrom Act  16 of 1961. Therefore, the
\nprovision in  Act 15  of 1978  omitting Section\t 5 from\t the
\nprincipal Act  is a virtue to be commended, not a vice to be
\ncondemned. It is eminently reasonable and to contend against
\nit is obviously unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
     A different  criticism  has  been\tmade  regarding\t the
\ndeletion of  Section 4\tby Shri\t Govindan Nair;\t but  it  is
\nequally mis-conceived, if we may say so. Section 4 of Act 16
\nof 1961 provided for the share of members including those en
\nventre sa  mere. This  provision  was  deleted\tbecause\t its
\npurpose was otherwise served by the substituted Section 3 of
\nAct 16\tof 1961\t by including  a direction  to the Board “to
\neffect partition of the Estate and the Palace Fund among all
\nthe members  entitled to a share. . . under Section 4 of the
\nKerala Joint  Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act
\n30 of  1976).” The effect of the importation of Section 4 of
\nthe Abolition  Act is  to ensure  partition per capita among
\nall the members as in the case of a Joint Hindu Family other
\nthan an undivided Mitakshara Hindu family.\n<\/p>\n
144<\/span><\/p>\n
What was  otiose, namely,  Section 4  of Act 16 of 1961, was
\ncut out. This was merely a drafting operation not making any
\nchange in the substantive law bearing upon the shares of the
\nmembers. The contention that by this deletion the members of
\nthe Kovilagam  had been made over as hostages to the caprice
\nof  the\t  Board\t of   Trustees\tis   a\tfrightful  error  or
\ndisingenuous scare.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  course of his submissions, counsel had a dig at
\nthe Board,  which, according  to him,  was  an\timperium  in
\nimperio, a  law unto  itself and, therefore, arbitrary. This
\nagain is  an egregious\terror.\tThe  Board  was\t not  a\t new
\ncreation but  an old  concoction. Thirty years ago the Ruler
\nbrought it  into being.\t Since then, the Kerala legislature,
\nin Act\t16 of  1961, continued it and the latest legislation
\nnow denounced before us recognised this time-honoured entity
\nwherein the  heads of  the four\t branches were\tmembers\t and
\nentrusted it with the work of division of assets. The Board,
\nbeing an  old institution  in plenary  management since 1949
\nand wisely  composed of\t the seniormost\t members of the four
\nbranches,  is\tsentimentally  and   functionally  the\tbest
\ninstrument to  divide and  distribute. Indeed Act 16 of 1961
\nhad also  entrusted the\t task of partition to the same Board
\nand no\tmember had  during nearly two decades challenged the
\nwisdom of the provision. We see no legal ground to blaspheme
\nthis Board.\n<\/p>\n
     The greater  grievance of\tcounsel about  the Board was
\nsomething else.\t He contended that the Board under Section 3
\n(2) was\t empowered to effect the partition of the Estate and
\nthe Palace  Fund “and  the partition  so effected  shall  be
\nvalid….” From\t this the  criticism was  spun out  that the
\nBoard was  likely to  act in any manner it pleased, sell the
\nproperties at  any price, distribute the assets at its sweet
\nwill or\t whim and  thus reduce\tthe partition  of  Kovilagam
\nproperties to a mock exercise by an unchallengable Board. He
\ncontrasted  this   grim\t picture   with\t  the\tadvantageous
\nalternative of\ta civil\t suit where  the shares\t were  fixed
\naccording  to\tlaw,  the   properties\twere   valued  by  a
\nCommissioner, objections  to the  report of the Commissioner
\nwere considered\t by the\t Court and  a decree, preliminary or
\nfinal,\twas  subject  to  appeal  and  further\tappeal.\t The
\njudicial process  was a\t great guarantee  of the  rights  of
\nparties\t which\t was  unavailable   before  the\t statutorily
\nimmunised and  potentially eccentric  Board of\tTrustees. We
\nremained unmoved  by this  sombre picturisation\t made up  of
\nillusory apprehensions. We have earlier pointed out that the
\nstrength of  the Cochin\t Royal family  is  around  800.\t The
\nproperties consist  of urban  lands, rural  lands, buildings
\nand  other  assets  considerable  in  volume  and  value.  A
\nlitigative resolution  of the  conflicts among\tmembers with
\nthe plethora of interlocutory proceedings plus revisions
\n145<\/span>
\nand appeals  may be  an endless adventure which would surely
\nbankrupt the  poorer members and deny to everyone a share in
\nthe properties by metes and bounds for a generation to come.
\nOf  course,   those  who   are\talready\t  in  possession  of
\nproperties-and counsel\tfor the\t respondent hinted  that the
\npetitioners  belong   to  this\t category-would\t benefit  by
\nstriking down  this legislation\t and  delay  in\t legislative
\nrectification of  the situation\t and the  further litigation
\nthat might  be launched\t and so\t on. Those  who have, have a
\nvested interest\t in procratination; those who have not, have
\nan urgent  interest in instant justice. In this view, a non-
\ncurial instrumentality\tand procedure  for partitioning\t the
\nproperties  cannot   be\t condemned  as\tdiscriminatory.\t The
\nalternative created by the statute is quite a reasonable and
\nin our\tview  a\t better\t instrument  having  regard  to\t the
\ntotality of  factors. Law is not a cocoon and keeps its eyes
\nwide awake  to the  realities of  life. The  legislation  in
\nquestion has  taken note of the fact that the Board has been
\nfor decades  entrusted by  the Maharaja\t by his Proclamation
\nwith  the   administration  of\tthe  family  estate  and  no
\ncomplaints have\t ever been  voiced against their management.
\nThe latter  legislation of  1961 has  sanctified this Board.
\nThat legislation has gone to the extent of conferring powers
\nof partitioning\t the Kovilagam\tproperties on this Board and
\nthe present  Act of 1978 does nothing more. We are unable to
\nunderstand how\twhat was  good and  valid in  1961 Act could
\nbecome vicious\tand invalid  in 1978. The composition of the
\nBoard and its history and experience convince us that it was
\na fit instrument for the task entrusted.\n<\/p>\n
     The fear  expressed before us that the Board may ignore
\nthe norms of judicial procedure while settling the rights of
\nparties is  misplaced. We  do not regard Section 3 of Act 15
\nof 1978\t as dispensing\twith canons  of fairplay  of natural
\njustice and of quasi-judicial values.\n<\/p>\n
     We realise\t that the  enormous  work  of  dividing\t the
\nproperties has\tto be  carefully carried out. Quasi-judicial
\nresponsibilities are  implied by  the statute in the Board’s
\nfunctions and  if the  Board breaches these norms and canons
\nthe constitutional remedy under Article 226 comes into play.
\nAfter all,  the\t Board\tis  a  statutory  body\tand  not  an
\nexecutive creature.  It has  been saddled with effecting the
\nrights of  parties and is bound to act quasi-judicially. Its
\ndeviances  are\t not  unreviewable   in\t writ  jurisdiction.
\nTherefore,  we\t direct\t the   Board  to   comply  with\t the
\nrequirements prescribed\t in several  decisions of this Court
\nin  quasi-judicial   jurisdictions.   Natural\tjustice\t  is
\nobviously the  first as\t this Court has ruled in a shower of
\ncases especially highlighting in Maneka Gandhi’s case(1) and
\nM. S. Gill’s case(2). This Court has
\n146<\/span>
\ngone to\t the extent  of holding that natural justice require
\nreasons to  be written\tfor  conclusions  made.\t The  Organo
\nChemical Industries  & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.<\/a>(1) this
\nCourt has  held that  the absence  of a right of appeal does
\nnot spell  arbitrariness. It  is further  held in  the\tsame
\nruling that  giving of reasons for conclusions is ordinarily
\nan important  component of natural justice in quasi-judicial
\ntribunals. In  short,  every  facility\tthat  a\t party\twill
\nreasonably receive  before a quasi-judicial body when rights
\nare adjudicated\t upon, will  be available  before this Board
\nand  we\t  mandate  it\tto  extend   such   facilities\t and
\nopportunities. We  need hardly\tmention that when properties
\nare sold  parties  must\t be  intimated\tand  the  principles
\nembedded in  the Partition  Act must  be taken\tnote of when
\nproperties are\tvalued and allotted. The services of valuers
\nof  properties\tor  of\tCommissioners  must  also  be  used.
\nMoreover, parties  must be  given opportunity  to object  to
\nreports of  Commissioners, if  any, appointed. In short, the
\ngeneral\t law,\tprocessual  and\t  substantive,\tbearing\t  on
\nallotment of properties cannot be thrown to the winds by the
\nBoard merely  because Section 3 does not write these details
\ninto it.  We must  hasten to  caution that no party can hold
\nthe Board  in ransom  by  raising  vexatious  and  frivolous
\nobjections and putting in proceeding after proceeding merely
\nto delay or defeat. The Board is geared to completion of the
\npartition with\ta reasonable  speed and\t that  purpose\tmust
\ninform its  activities. While  every party  is entitled to a
\nreasonable voice  in the  proceedings no party can enjoy the
\nprivilege of  thwarting\t the  processes\t of  justice.  These
\nobservations and directions which are built-in in Section 3,
\nin  our\t  view,\t are  sufficient  guidelines  to  repel\t the
\nsubmission that\t the power  under Section  3(2) is unbridled
\nand unconstitutional.  Partitions are  best done  by a broad
\nconsensus  and\t the  Board   will  remember  that  constant
\nconsultation with  the members\tmay facilitate\tits work and
\nreduce tension and friction.\n<\/p>\n
     Nor are  we impressed  with the  argument that  because
\nappeals\t are   absent  justice\tis  jettisoned.\t Oftentimes,
\nappeals are  the bane  of  the\tjustice\t system,  especially
\nbecause the  rich can  defeat the  poor and  the weak can be
\nbaulked of  their rights  indefinitely that  way. We  do not
\nmean to\t decry the  right of appeal, but may not go with the
\npetitioner in  glorifying it  in  all  situations.  We\thave
\nemphasised that\t the Board  is a  statutory body and when it
\nviolates the  prescriptions of\tthe law\t or  otherwise\tacts
\narbitrarily or\tmala fide, Art. 226 of the Constitution is a
\ncorrective. Nothing more is needed because everything needed
\nis implied in that power.\n<\/p>\n
147<\/span><\/p>\n
     The last  and perhaps  the least valid submission, with
\nmeretricious attraction,  is the  challenge based on unequal
\nlegislation picking  out one  from among  equals for hostile
\ntreatment. We  have held  that the  royal family  estate  is
\nbeing partitioned  on principles similar to those applicable
\nto all\tother Kerala  Hindu families and the only difference
\nis a  Board instead  of a court to allot shares by metes and
\nbounds. This,  we have\tshown, is  fully  justified  by\t the
\nspecial circumstances.\tThe Cochin  Kovilakam vis-a-vis\t the
\nKerala State is sui generis. It has been legislatively dealt
\nwith as a special class throughout the history of Kerala and
\nbefore. The  Act impugned has none of the characteristics of
\nclass legislation  and, is  on the other hand, an equalising
\nmeasure with a pragmatic touch.\n<\/p>\n
     We negative the specious submission.\n<\/p>\n
     We find  no merit\tin this\t Special Leave\tPetition and
\ndismiss it without costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n148<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1918, 1980 SCR (2) 136 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: RAMA VERMA BHARATHAN THAMPURAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/07\/1979 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\"},\"wordCount\":3672,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\",\"name\":\"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979","datePublished":"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979"},"wordCount":3672,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979","name":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T11:11:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-verma-bharathan-thampuran-vs-state-of-kerala-and-ors-on-30-july-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 30 July, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}