1991 (11) TMI 253 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties in suit were joint family properties or personal properties of Respondent No. 1.
2. The significance of Respondent No. 1 being a sovereign ruler in determining the nature of the properties.
3. The applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
4. The relevance of the concept of "Sthanam" and whether Respondent No. 1 was a "Sthani."
5. The burden of proof regarding the nature of the properties.
6. The implications of the covenant entered into by the rulers of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India.
7. The effect of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, on the properties in suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Family Properties vs. Personal Properties:
The appellant claimed that the properties in suit were joint family properties managed by Respondent No. 1 as the karnavan of an undivided marumakkathayam tarwad. Respondent No. 1 contested this, asserting the properties were his personal properties held in his capacity as the sovereign ruler of Travancore. The trial court and the High Court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence proving the properties were joint family properties. The properties were not included in the deed of partition (Exhibit B-3) executed by the family, indicating they were not considered joint family properties. The courts concluded that the properties were personal properties of Respondent No. 1.

2. Significance of Sovereignty:
The court emphasized that as a sovereign ruler, Respondent No. 1 had the authority to treat and use the properties under his control in any manner he deemed fit. The legal incidents of sovereignty implied that there was no distinction between the public or state properties and the private properties of the sovereign. The properties held by a sovereign ruler were impartible and could not be claimed by other family members as joint family properties.

3. Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975:
The court noted that these Acts would apply only if the properties in suit were joint family properties. Since the properties were found to be personal properties of Respondent No. 1, the provisions of these Acts did not apply. The court also highlighted that the appellant did not file a return under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, indicating that the properties were not considered joint family properties by the family members.

4. Concept of "Sthanam" and Respondent No. 1 as "Sthani":
The appellant's plea that the properties constituted "Sthanam" and Respondent No. 1 was a "Sthani" was rejected. The court observed that there was no foundation for such a case in the pleadings, and no evidence was produced to support this assertion. The use of the word "Sthanam" in certain exhibits could not be the basis for deciding this issue.

5. Burden of Proof:
The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a custom different from the ordinary law of inheritance. The appellant failed to provide convincing evidence that the properties were joint family properties. The court emphasized that the question of burden of proof becomes less significant when both parties have adduced evidence, and the court must decide based on the materials presented.

6. Implications of the Covenant:
The covenant dated 27th May 1949, between the rulers of Travancore and Cochin and the Government of India, allowed Respondent No. 1 to retain certain properties as his private properties. The court found that Respondent No. 1 had furnished an inventory of such properties, which was accepted by the Government of India. This acceptance did not create new rights but recognized the existing status of the properties as personal properties of Respondent No. 1.

7. Effect of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963:
The court noted that Respondent No. 1 filed a return under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in his capacity as an individual. The appellant and other family members did not file any returns, indicating they did not consider the properties as joint family properties. The court concluded that the properties were personal properties of Respondent No. 1 and were not affected by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1983 and Civil Appeal No. 535 of 1983, upholding the findings of the trial court and the High Court that the properties in suit were personal properties of Respondent No. 1 and not joint family properties. The court emphasized the significance of Respondent No. 1's status as a sovereign ruler and the implications of the covenant with the Government of India. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.