MADURAI: Upholding the right of Kerala over the Travancore Palace in Courtallam, the Madurai Bench dismissed a plea made by the Royal family of Travancore claiming title over the structure.
The petition was filed by Moolam Thirunal Ramavarma, a descendant of the Travancore King, represented by his power of attorney Adithya Varma. He challenged an order passed by the Tirunelveli district revenue officer on September 25, 2018, confirming the mutation of the title of the property to the name of the Kerala government and sought to restore it to the name of the Maharaja of Travancore.
Justice PB Balaji observed that the petition is a false case set up to knock off the property that is lawfully vested with the state. He pointed out that the petitioner was relying on the Covenant dated May 27, 1949 entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India for the purposes of confirmation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin.
Though in the said covenant, it was made clear that the ruler of each coveting state shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties, the palace was not among the list furnished by the Maharaja of Travancore regarding the properties which he wished to retain, the judge noted.
He also accepted the contention of the additional advocate general of Kerala Gopala Krishna Kurup that the palace was never a private property and Kerala had exercised its rights over it as early as in 1937.
The TN government has also contended that the Courtallam palace was never retained by the Maharaja and was only handed over to the Government of Travancore-Cochin, and subsequently, as its successor, the Kerala government is entitled to the property, the judge noted and passed the order.
The title of the property had been wrongly mutated to the name of caretaker Damodara Pandian in 1994 and based on an application made by Kerala, the DRO had changed the title to the government’s name.
Challenging this, the royal family had moved the court in 2015 and the court had remitted the matter back to the DRO to be considered afresh after granting reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned. Based on the order, the DRO had issued notice to all interested parties, conducted an inquiry and found that the mutated patta was in order, which has been challenged in the present petition.