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.

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 learned single Judge, that claim was not pursued by the 1st appellant.

4. Thestatutes 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."

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 he Board shall administer the properties and palace funds 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.

6. It has to benoticed, 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 Thampur