MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS.
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 1117, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 5 – Raja Faridkot Estate Act,
1948 – Succesion to the Properties left behind by the Raja , former
ruler of Faridkot State – In 1948, the Raja entered into a Covenant
with the Govt. of India and executed Instrument of Accession, as a
result area forming part of Faridkot State became part of the Indian
Union – In 1948, “Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted by
the Raja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve to
his male successor – Succession to the properties of the Raja which
were shown to be private properties in the Covenant – Raja had
three daughters and a son, who predeceased his father without
leaving any heir – After the accession was complete, the Raja
executed the first Will in 1950, bequeathing the specified properties
to all three daughters in equal shares – In 1952, he executed second
Will in favour of his two daughters excluding his eldest daughter –
Three years later, the Ruler executed a registered settlement, however,
unlike the Second will, the Settlement did not disinherit the eldest
daughter – All three documents were executed before Hindu
Successsion Act,1956 – Ruler died in 1989 – Third Will allegedly
executed by the Ruler in the year 1982, came into
picture which
declared that the entire property would be inherited by a Trust,
trustees of which would be his two daughters excluding the elder
daughter – Suit by the younger brother of the Ruler, claiming the
estate left behind by the Ruler on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture
– Eldest daughter also filed suit for declaration that the eldest
daughter was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the properties
left behind by the Ruler; and that the alleged Third Will executed by
the Ruler was invalid, void and unenforceable – Trial court held
that the Third Will was not genuine; that the claim of the younger
brother of the Ruler was not accepted however, the claim made by
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1117
1117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
eldest daughter was accepted – Appeal thereagainst were dismissed
– Matter before the High Court wherein the High Court held that
the Rule of Primogeniture had no application; that the Will executed
by the mother of the Ruler was proved beyond doubt on which
reliance was placed by the younger brother; that the succession to
the properties left behind by the Ruler would be governed by the
personal law of succession; and that the third Will was a fabricated
document –On appeal, held: In view of the specific finding rendered
by the courts below, including the High Court, no case was made
out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession
based on said Rule – As regards, the Will executed by Mother of
Ruler, once the Will was proved and found to have been validly
executed, in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of mother
of Ruler in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturally
be governed by the Will executed by the testatrix – Thus, findings
by the High Court fully justified.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos.9151-9153 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 01.06.2020 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. NOs.2006/2018
(O&M), 1418/2018 (O&M) and 2176/2018 (O&M).
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10211-10213 And 11206-11208
of 2020
Krishnan Venugopal, Gurinder Singh Gill, V. Giri, Manjit Singh
Khaira, Mukul
Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Vivek
Bhandari, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Varun Chandiok, Riya Seth, Priya Kaushik,
Ms. Deepanshi Ishar, Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Krishnan Agarwal, Kaushik
Mishra, Mahesh Kumar, Ms Aashna Gill, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.
D. Khanna, Vmz Chambers, Balbir Singh Sewak, Ripudaman Singh
Sidhu, Amit Krishna, Ms. Hanima Grewal, Jaswinder Singh, Gagandeep
Singh Mann, Tushar Bakshi, Yashraj Singh Deora, Arya Tripathi, Ms.
Monika Dwivedi, Rajat Mathur, Jaiveer Shergill, Himanshu Bajaj, Kaushal
Yadav, Shafik Ahmed Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms.
Yashoda Katiyar, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ateev Mathur,
Amol Sharma, Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Tushar Sahu, Vikas Kumar, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
The Order of the Court was passed by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI
1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgment
and order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the High Court1in RSA No. 2006
of 2018 (O&M), RSA No. 1418 of 2018 (O&M) and RSA No. 2176 of
2018 (O&M).
2. The controversy in the instant matters concerns succession to
the properties left behind by Raja Harinder Singh, former ruler of Faridkot
State. The relationship between the parties having not been disputed,
the genealogical chart may be extracted here for facility.
3. Raja Harinder Singh, as Ruler of Faridkot State, entered into a
Covenant on 05.05.1948 with the Government of India and executed
Instrument of Accession, as a result of which the area forming part of
Faridkot State became part of the Indian Union. PEPSU Covenant (Exh.
D-6) entered into by Rulers including said Raja Harinder Singh inter
alia provided as under:-
1High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
“Article VI
(1)
The Ruler of each coventing State shall, as soon as may be
practicable, and in any event not later than the 20th of August,
1948, make over the administration of his State to the Raj
Pramukh and thereupon-
(a)
All rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the
Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the
Government of the Covenanting State shall vest in
the Union and shall hereafter be exercisable only as
provided by this Covenant or by the Constitution to
be framed thereunder.
(b)
All duties and obligations of the Rulers pertaining or
incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State
shall devolve on the Union and shall be discharged
by it;
(c)
All the assets and liabilities of the Covenanting State
shall be the assets and liabilities of the Union; and
(d)
The military forces, if any, of the Covenanting State
shall become the military forces of the Union.
…       …      …
Article XII
(1)
The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to
the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties
(as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the
date of his making over the administration of that State to
the Raj Pramukh.
(2)
He shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh before the 20th day of
September, 1948, and inventory of all the immovable
properties, securities and cash balances held by him as such
private property.
(3)
If any dispute arises as to whether any item of
property is
the private property of the ruler or State property, it shall be
referred to such person as the Government of India nominate
in consultation with the Raj Pramukh and the decision of
that person shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
Provided that no such dispute shall be so referable after
the 31st day of December, 1948.
…       …      …
Article XIV
(1)
The succession, according to law and custom, to the Gaddi
of each Covenanting State, and to the personal rights,
privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler thereof is hereby
guaranteed.
(2)
Every question of disputed succession in regard to a
Covenanting State which arises after the inauguration of
the Union shall be decided by the Council of Rulers after
referring it to a bench consisting of all the available Judges
of the High Court of the Union and in accordance with the
opinion given by such bench.
No enquiry shall be made by or under the authority of
the Union, and no proceedings shall lie in any Court in the
Union against the Ruler of the Covenanting State, whether
in a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anything
done or omitted to be done by him or under his authority
during the period of his administration of that State.”
Schedule-I to the Covenant stipulated amounts of Privy Purses
and the amount with regard to Faridkot was Rs.3,81,400/-.
4. Like other Covenants which were entered into around that
time, the administration of the State and the rights, authority and
jurisdiction of the then ruler pertaining to or incidental to the Government
of the Covenanting State vested in the Union. The concerned ruler was
entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of private properties
which were specified. The
succession to the Gaddi of each Covenanting
State and the personal rights, dignities and titles would, however, be
according to law and custom; and Article XIV guaranteed such
succession.
5. Though, in terms of Article VI of the Covenant, the
administration of the State was made over and all rights, authority and
jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler stood vested in the Union of India. On
18.08.1948 “The Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted by the
Raja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve to his male
successor.
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
6. In the present matters, we are concerned with succession tothe
properties which were shown to be private properties in the Covenant.
Raja Harinder Singh was blessed with three daughters and a son named
Tikka Harmohinder Singh, who, unfortunately predeceased said Raja
Harinder Singh without leaving any heir or representative.
7. Raja Harinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ruler’)
executed a Will, soon after the accession was complete. The Will was
executed on 11.03.1950. This Will (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First
Will’) specified certain bank accounts and amounts lying in those accounts
as well as four flats at Rohtak Road, Delhi, and sought to bequeath said
specified properties to all three daughters in equal shares.
8. The Ruler then executed the Second Will on 22.05.1952 which
again dealt with the properties which were specified in the First Will. It,
however, stated that the testator did not wish to leave any property in
favour of the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. It specified certain
properties and stated that the properties would devolve upon the other
two daughters namely Rajkumari Deepinder Kaur and Rajkumari
Maheepinder Kaur in equal shares. It appears that the eldest daughter
had married against the wishes of the father, which perhaps was the
reason why said recitals found place in the Second Will.
9. Three years thereafter, a registered Settlement was executed
by the Ruler on
01.04.1955 in London which dealt with certain bank
accounts held in Grindlays Bank Limited, London. This Settlement,
however, stated that the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur would
not be entitled to receive any part of the income until she attained the
age of 25 years or judicially separated from her husband. Thus, unlike
the Second Will, the Settlement dated 01.04.1955 had not disinherited
the eldest daughter.
10. Theaforestated three documents were executed before the
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,Section 5 of which Act is
to the following effect:-
“5. Act not to apply to certain properties.
This Act shall not apply to¯
(i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), by reason of the provisions
contained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of
1954);
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1123
(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any
covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian
State with the Government of India or by the terms of any
enactment passed before the commencement of this Act;
(iii) the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace
Fund administered by the Palace Administration Board by reason
of the powers conferred by Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated 29th
June, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin.”
11. The Ruler died on 16.10.1989 and during the Bhog Ceremony
held on 26.10.1989, a Third Will dated 01.06.1982 allegedly executed by
the Ruler was read out and a copy of the said Third Will was handed
over to the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. By the time the Third
Will was allegedly executed, the only son of the Ruler had already expired
on 13.10.1981. The Third Will purportedly declared that the entire property
left behind by the Ruler would be inherited by a Trust known as “Maharwal
Khewaji Trust” (‘the Trust’, for short), trustees of which would be
RajkumariDeepinder Kaur and Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur, serving
members of Board of Administration of the personal estate of the Ruler
known as “His Highness Personal Estates of Faridkot” and one member
of Maharani Mohinder Kaur’s family etc. The document also dealt with
the functioning of the Board of Trustees and stipulated some conditions.
12. Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, younger brother of the Ruler filed
Civil Suit which
was later renumbered as Civil Suit No. 4193/21-08-
2010 claiming inter alia that by Rule of Primogeniture said Kanwar
Manjit Inder Singh was entitled to the Estate left behind by the Ruler.
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the eldest daughter, who, according to the
Third Will dated 01.06.1982 was not given any interest or share in the
property, also filed Civil Suit which was later renumbered as Civil Suit
No.473/23-7-2010. The Suit, as initially filed, sought decree of declaration
that the plaintiff-Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was owner to the extent of 1/3rd
share in the properties left behind by the Ruler with a consequential
relief of joint possession along with her two sisters. Apart from her two
sisters, the Trust along with its Trustees were also parties to the Suit. By
an application dated 18.11.1993 amendment to the Plaint was sought
incorporating the relief regarding decree of declaration that the alleged
Third Will dated 01.06.1982 executed by the Ruler was invalid, void and
unenforceable.
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
A common written statement was filed on behalf of the Trust and
two sisters of the plaintiff.
13. Both the Suits were taken-up together and the Trial Court
framed following issues for consideration:-
1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the extent of
1/3rd share of the suit property along with defendants no.1
and 2 being daughters of deceased under the provisions of
Hindu Succession Act and the plaintiff thus is owner of 1/
3rd share of the suit property? OPP
2.
Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed
to the entire estate of her father being eldest surviving child?
OPP
3.
 Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed
as sole owner under Raja of Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 (Act
No.5 of 1948) being senior most living child? OPP
4.
Whether the property mentioned in Annexure A1 is joint
family and ancestral coparcenary property and late Raja
Harinder Singh had no right to alienate in any manner? OPP
5.
Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed by Hindu
Succession Act which had abrogated custom and plaintiff
and defendatns No.1 and 2 inherited the property in dispute
in equal share according to Hindu Succession Act and
plaintiff has become owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property?
OPP
6.
Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder Singh of Faridkot
executed a valid Will dated 1-6-1982? If so, what is its
effect? OPD
7.
Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh executed
a valid
Trust known as Faridkot Ruling Family Housing Trust with
the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and deceased defendant
no.2 being sole beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD
8.
Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts for
the period they have been managing and receiving income
from the properties left by the deceased late Raja Harinder
Singh? OPD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
9.
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or misjoinder of
parties? If so, what is its effect? OPD
10.
Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of
Court fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is its effect? OPD
11.
Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the
suit? OPD
12.
Whether the Trust known as “Maharwal Khewaji Trust” is
a valid legal entity? If so, what is its effect? OPD
13.
Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh and defendant
no.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh in matters of inheritance
and succession is governed by Rule of Primogeniture and
in the absence of male lineal child according to custom,
brother succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.
14.
Whether Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh defendant no.6
inherited all the immovable and movable properties of Late
Raja Harinder Singh under the law of Primogeniture?
OPD-6.
15.
Whether according to Article 14 of the covenants of Pepsu
to which late Raja Harinder Singh was signatory, succession
was according to law and custom to the Gaddi of each
Covenanting States was guaranteed and according to which
plaintiff under custom is entitled to inheritance to the estate
of Raja Harinder Singh under rule of Primogeniture and
the female heirs have no right to succeed to the property of
late Raja Harinder Singh according to custom and rule of
Primogeniture? OPD-6.
16.
Relief.”
14. Both the Suits were disposed of by the Trial Court vide its
judgment and order dated 25.07.2013. The principal question
posed by
the Trial Court was regarding the validity of the Third Will and after
considering the entirety of the evidence, the Trial Court found said Third
Will not to be a genuine document due to a large number of suspicious
circumstances which were also individually dealt with by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court then considered whether the Rule of Primogeniture was
applicable to the properties left behind by the Ruler or whether the
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be applicable. The
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
case set-up by Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh was not accepted but the
claim made by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was accepted. The conclusion
drawn by the Trial Court was as under:-
“91. As an upshot of my above discussion on the above issues,
suit of the plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur is hereby partly
dismissed and partly decreed with costs and the Will dated 1-6-
1982 is hereby declared as null and void, not binding upon the
rights of plaintiff Amrit Kaur. The plaintiff Amrit Kaur is entitled
to joint possession to the extent of 1/2(half) share with defendant
no.1 Maharani Deepinder Kaur qua the properties fully detailed
and described in Annexure A1, except the properties which have
been acquired by any State Government or Central Government.
Trust which was constituted on the basis of the alleged Will is
hereby declared as non-existent. The defendants are also
restrained from alienating, mortgaging, transferring, leasing,
encumbering or exchanging the suit property as fully detailed and
described in Annexure A1. Annexure A1 be treated as part of
decree. Suit being maintained by plaintiff Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh through his legal heir is hereby dismissed with no order as
to costs. Separate decree sheets be prepared and copy of this
judgment be placed in the consolidated suit. File be consigned to
record room. Compliance be made.”
15. It must be stated that Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur had expired
on 26.07.2001, when the
matter was still pending before the Trial Court.
Said Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur was unmarried and died without
leaving any heir or successor apart from her two sisters who were already
before the court.
16. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, Rajkumari
Deepinder Kaur, the Trust and the other Trustees filed C.A.Nos.1046 of
2013 and 480 of 2017 while Bharat Inder Singh son of Kanwar Manjit
Inder Singh preferred C.A.Nos.1054 of 2013 and 1062 of 2013 in the
court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
Said appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common
judgment dated 05.02.2018 by the Lower Appellate Court which did not
find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
It, therefore, dismissed the appeals as well as cross-objections preferred
by the concerned parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
17.  The parties being aggrieved, preferred RSA No.2006 of 2018
(O&M), RSA No.1418 of 2018 (O&M) and RSA No.2176 of 2018
(O&M) in the High Court which were dealt with by the High Court by
its common judgment and order, which is presently under challenge.
18. The High Court framed following points for deciding the
appeals preferred before it.
“35. Before deliberating upon the controversy involved in these
appeals, I would like to consider the following points for deciding
the appeals finally:- 
(1) Whether The Raja of Faridkot’ Estate Act 1948 is a valid
enactment and is applicable for succession to the Estate of Raja
by the plaintiff (Rajkumari Amrit Kaur)? 
(2) Whether Law of Primogeniture is applicable in the succession
of Estate of  deceased Raja Harinder Singh? 
(3) Whether Raja Harinder Singh executed a valid Will dated
01.06.1982 and Maharwal Khewaji Trust constituted thereunder
is a legally constituted Trust?
(4) Whether Civil Suit No.4193 dated 21.08.2010/04.04.1992 titled
‘Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh through LR vs. Maharani Deepinder
Kaur and others’ is maintainable? 
(5). Whether Civil Suit No.437 dated 23.07.2010/15.10.1992 titled
‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur vs. Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others
is maintainable?”
19. The High Court held that the Raja of Faridkot’s Estate Act,
1948 was not a valid enactment and would not be applicable for
succession to the estate of the Ruler. It was also held that the Rule of
Primogeniture as pleaded by Kanwar Manjit
Inder Singh had no
application in the present case and that the succession to the properties
left behind by the Ruler would be governed by the personal law of
succession. On the question regarding validity of Third Will, the matter
was considered extensively under eight different heads and it was
concluded that the Third Will was a fabricated document which was
shrouded with suspicious circumstances and that the succession to the
properties left behind by the Ruler would, therefore, be by intestate
succession. The issues concerning the maintainability of the Suit were
also decided in favour of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur.
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
20. On the issue of applicability of Rule of Primogeniture, the
High Court observed:-
“78. Now coming to the conclusion whether Law of Primogeniture
is applicable in the succession of Estate of deceased Raja
Harinder Singh, it can be seen that admittedly appellant in RSA
No. 2176 of 2018 has claimed the property to be the ancestral
property in order to attract the Rule of Primogeniture which
according to him exists on presumptory notion in case of rulers.
Ancestral nature of the property can be proved only by way of
producing Excerpt (Intekhab)/pedigree table, as per requirement
of Volume 1, Chapter 9, Rules 5 & 6 of High Court Rules and
Orders, and as per para No. 232 of Mullah’s Law. The properties
situated in village Kaimbwala, Mauli Jagran and Manimajra-fort
known as Surajgarh Fort Manimajra and Hotel site No. 12 in Sector
17, Chandigarh are proved to be self acquired properties. No
evidence has been led by the plaintiff/appellant to discharge the
onus to show that the properties have descended from common
ancestor and only by rule of descent and not otherwise. Appellant
while appearing as PW-4 has not adduced any documentary
evidence to show that the properties in question are ancestral
properties. The succession to Gaddi of the Faridkot Estate was
under the paramountcy of the British Crown. The successor was
being recognized by the Britishers only and the same was not
automatic, rather it was subject to the
approval/recognition by the
British Crown. Primogeniture is not codified law. The alleged
custom i.e. rule of primogeniture has to be pleaded and proved by
way of evidence. The person who relies upon the existence of
custom/primogeniture has to discharge the onus of proving the
same to the satisfaction of the Court in the most innocuous manner.
The custom cannot be extended by analogy. Specific custom has
to be pleaded with reference to necessary particulars in the
pleadings and thereafter to be proved by the asserting party by
way of cogent and admissible evidence.
79. Prior to merger agreement, the property in question was held
by the late Raja as sovereign and there was no distinction between
the State and the private properties, as sovereign was owner of
all the properties. After the merger agreement and accession to
dominion of India, the properties were earmarked by late Raja as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
his personal properties for which he was competent to do so under
the Covenant. After approval of the properties in the list submitted
by the Raja as his personal properties, the same ceased to be
State properties. Reference can be made to para nos. 61, 63, 64,
67 and 69 of Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. Padmanabha
Dasa Bala Rama Varma 1993 Supp 1 SCC 233.
80. On merger of Faridkot State with dominion of India, Rule of
Primogeniture, if any, ceased to exist on account of Act of State.
In the Covenant dated 05.05.1948, there is no clause/article which
either recognizes or guarantees the continuance of alleged Rule
of Primogeniture. The Covenant has been reproduced in the White
Paper. As per Article XII of the Covenant, the Ruler of each
Covenanting States was entitled to the full ownership, use and
enjoyment of all the private properties as distinct from the State
properties, belonging to him on the date of his making over the
administration of the State to Rajpramukh. As per clause 2 of
Article XII, the Ruler of each covenanting States was required to
furnish an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities
and cash balances to the Rajpramukh before 20.09.1948. This
inventory is in the context of immovable properties, securities and
cash balances held by the Ruler as private properties. On approval
of list by Rajpramukh, the properties in the hands of the Ruler
became his absolute properties and he was entitled to deal with
his properties in the
manner he liked. Once the properties have
been retained by the Ruler as his personal properties after
surrendering the sovereignty to Government of India, pursuant to
Covenant, then the properties held by him are his private properties
and other members of royal family had no claim. Reference can
be made to para nos. 69 & 81 to 86 of RevathinnalBalagopala
Varma v. PadmanabhaDasaBala Rama Varma 1993 Supp 1
SCC 233.
81. After submission of list and approval of the same by
Rajpramukh, the Raja treated the suit properties to be his private
and individual properties, which is apparent from various Tax
Returns submitted by him before the Tax Authorities, claiming the
suit properties to be his individual properties in view of Ex. D3/22
to Ex. D3/36. The Covenant entered into by the Ruler is an Act of
State between two sovereigns. No action in a Court of law can
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
be founded by any citizen of a new State. In the new set up, the
residents do not carry with them the rights which they possessed
as subjects of the ex-sovereign and that as subjects of new
sovereign, they have only such rights as are guaranteed or
recognized by him. Reference can be made to para nos. 11, 13
and 14 of Dalmiya Dadri Cement Limited vs.Commissioner of
Income Tax, AIR 1958 SC 816.
82. The impartible estate of Hindu Undivided Family, if any, existed
prior to Covenant entered by the Ruler disappeared on account of
an Act of the State. The territories of former State of Patiala
have merged into the territories of India and all the joint Hindu
family property/impartible estate, which existed prior to the
accession have ceased to exist on account of Act of the State.
The grant of private properties to the Ruler was an Act of State
and such properties cannot maintain the earlier character which
was prior to entering into Covenant by the Ruler with Government
of India. Impartibility of Estate ceased to exist on account of merger
into the dominion of India and, therefore, Rule of Primogeniture,
if any, ceased to exist on account of merger of Faridkot State
with dominion of India. The guarantee under the Covenant was
only in respect of succession to Gaddi and not to the private
properties. The right to private properties of the Ex-Ruler depends
upon the personal law of succession to such private properties.
83.
Article XIV of the Covenant only recognized the succession
to “Gaddi” and not to the private properties, as approved in Article
XII of the Covenant. Gaddi and private properties are two distinct
connotations and it cannot be said that Gaddi included private
properties in any manner. Clause I of Article XIV of the Covenant
prescribed that the succession, according to law and custom, to
the Gaddi of each covenanting State and to the personal rights,
privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler thereof is hereby
guaranteed. Article XIV does not extend the assurance and
guarantee to private properties in any manner. The guarantee with
regard to succession, according to law and custom is given to the
Gaddi of each covenanting State and to the personal rights,
privileges, dignities and title to the Ex-Rulers thereof. There is no
guarantee with regard to succession according to law and custom
qua the private properties. The Government never guaranteed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
succession according to law and custom to the private property
of the Ruler which he kept after submission of the list to the
Rajpramukh. Reference can be made to White Paper on India
States published by Government of India, Ministry of States issued
on 05.07.1948. Part XI of the Indian States under the new
Constitution under the head “Guarantees Regarding Rights and
Privileges” and part VII “Settlement of Rulers Private properties”
would show that the nomenclature has been reflected in the White
Paper, wherein it has been mentioned that prior to the Covenant,
there was no distinction between private and State property of
the Ruler. In the White Paper, it has been mentioned that upon
integration of States, Ruler was required to furnish list of
immovable properties, securities and cash balances etc. claimed
by him as private property and upon approval of the same, the
Ruler was entitled to full ownership and enjoyment of private
properties as distinct from State properties. The personal privileges
of the Ex.-Ruler and those privileges have nothing to do with the
personal property of the Ruler. The guarantee or assurance are in
respect of personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler. It
does not extend to personal property which is different from
personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler. In this context
reference can be made to the ratio of Sudhansu Shekhar Singh
Deo v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 196(Five Judges
Bench) and
State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952
SC 252 (Five Judges Bench).”
21. It must be stated here that Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, in
support of his claim, had also relied upon registered Will dated 29.03.1990
(Ex. D-10) executed by Maharani Mohinder Kaur, mother of the Ruler.
After having dealt with certain specific properties, following clauses
find place in said Will.
“The testator further wishes that half of the amount of British
Government shall devolve on the Bharat Inder Singh son of
Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh.
Any residue left out of the aforesaid total estates belonging to the
testator shall devolve on Rajkumari Devinder Kaur.
………..The testator further ordains that other than the property
and estates mentioned above, any property or estate come her
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
way after execution of this Will she inherits or otherwise, those
part properties or assets only are to be divided equally between
(i) Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, (ii) Rajkumari Devinder Kaur and
(iii) Kanwar Bharat Inder Singh. In the event of demise of testator
son namely Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh his estate is to be divided
equally between Rajkumari Devinder Kaur and Kanwar Bharat
Singh. The testator expressly wishes that in the event of demise
of Rajkumari Devinder Kaur her shall devolve on minor daughter
of Rajkumari Devinder Kaur namely Harvinder Kaur Alexandra
Farinakis.”
22. Having found that the Will executed by Maharani Mohinder
Kaur was proved beyond any doubt and having concluded that the
succession to the properties left behind the Ruler would be by principles
of intestate succession,the High Court observed:-
“237………The claim with regard to succession to the estate
and private properties of deceased Raja Harinder Singh on the
basis of Law of Primogeniture is dismissed, however the appellant
would succeed to proportionate share of late Maharani Mohinder
Kaur on the basis of registered Will dated 29.03.1990 executed
by her. Maharani Mohinder Kaur (mother of Raja) was alive at
the time of death of Raja on 16.10.1989 and she being one of the
first class heirs of Raja would have succeeded share in the estate/
properties of late Raja. Therefore, on the basis of deemed
succession/inheritance by Maharani
Mohinder Kaur on 16.10.1989
and thereafter to the extent of share conferred by late Maharani
Mohinder Kaur upon the appellant by virtue of aforesaid Will dated
29.03.1990 (Ex-D-10), the appellant would succeed to the said
proportionate share in the estate of Raja in accordance with law.”
23. While issuing notice in these Special Leave Petitions, by its
order dated 13.08.2020 this Court directed: -
“Pending further consideration, all the parties shall maintain status
quo with regard to the properties involved in the present
proceedings. It is further directed that MaharwalKhewaji Trust
shall file the statement of accounts for the last five years before
the next date of hearing.”
24. Thereafter, while dealing with IA No.99377 of 2020 moved
by the Trust seeking permission to operate its bankaccounts for payment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
of salaries,taxes; towards utilitiesand maintenance of Trust properties
and towards expenses of the Charitable Hospital run by the Trust. After
setting out details about such accounts and the purposes set out in the
application, by its order dated 16.10.2020, this Court directed: -
“Since the activities undertaken by the Trust are in the nature
of running of a Hospital and other philanthropic causes, at this
stage, we permit the applicant trust to operate the accounts
mentioned in paragraph 12 of the application strictly for the
purposes enumerated at Serial Nos.2 to 7 in paragraph 8 of the
application.
The details of all the expenses so incurred as well as the
credits received shall be placed on record periodically; the First
Report shall be filed on or before 30.10.2020; and the Second
Report shall thereafter be submitted on or before 30.11.2020.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Banks mentioned in paragraph 12.
The concerned Bank Managers are also directed to send
the Statement of Accounts regarding respective Accounts for the
period 01.06.2020 to 30.10.2020. The details shall be furnished to
this Court on or before 10.11.2020. The details in respect of the
month of November 2020 shall be furnished on or before
05.12.2020.”
25. In Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020, we
have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior
Advocates on behalf of Rajkumari Deepinder Kaur, the Trust and its
Trustees.
Mr. Rohatgi concentrated on issues concerning frame of Suit
and limitation. In his submission, the Suit as amended, was hit by provisions
of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the claim was
completely time barred. Mr. Dwivedi concentrated on matters concerning
the validity and reliability of the Third Will and took us through the evidence
on record.
Since the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants were
dealt with by all three Courts below extensively, we do not find any
reason to upset the concurrent view taken by the Courts below. The
Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020 are, therefore,
dismissed without any order as to costs.
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
26. In Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 11206-11208 of 2020
preferred by Bharat InderSingh son of Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, Mr.
Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that by Rule of Primogeniture the properties
left behind by the Ruler must come in the hands of the male successor
namely Kunwar Manjit Inder Singh, followed by his son Bharat Inder
Singh. In view of the specific finding rendered by the courts below,
including the High Court, in our view, no case was made out for the
applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession based on said Rule.
We, therefore, see no reason to entertain any challenge in that behalf.
Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 11206-11208 of 2020, thus being devoid
of any substance, are dismissed without any order as to costs.
27. We now turn to Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 10211-
10213 of 2020 preferred by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. Mr. V. Giri, learned
Senior Advocate appeared in support of the petition has sought to assail
the findings with regard to the effect of the Will executed by Maharani
Mohinder Kaur and the conclusions drawn by the High Court in that
behalf. Once the will was proved and found to have been validly executed,
in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of Maharani Mohinder
Kaur in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturally be
governed by the Will executed by the testatrix. The findings rendered
by
the High Court were, therefore, fully justified and there is no reason to
entertain any challenge in that behalf. Special Leave Petition
(Civil)Nos.10211-10213 of 2020 are, therefore, dismissed without any
order as to costs.
28. Having dealt with the challenges raised in the petition, we
direct as under:-
a)
All reports statements of accounts and other documents,
lodged with this Court, pursuant to interim directions issued
by this Court, shall immediately be sent by the Registry of
this Court to the Trial Court.
b)
The Trust shall be entitled to run the Charitable Hospital
only upto 30.09.2022, whereafter all the aspects of
management, finance and other control including the need
for appointment of a Receiver shall be subject to such orders
as may be passed by the Court executing the decree in the
instant matters.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
c)
Rest of the properties in the hands of the Trust and/or any
other persons shall be maintained in the same form by all
the concerned, till appropriate orders are passed by the Court
executing the decree passed in the instant matters.
d)
With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are
disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Petitions disposed of.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]