STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MAHARANI USHADEVI
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 737, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 737 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
MAHARANI USHADEVI 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 201.2~11:i 
JULY 15, 2015 
. .j 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
~r· 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.363-Applicability of 
A 
B 
- Suit for declaration of title and permanent injpnction - By c 
the legal heir of Maharaja of Holkar - Claiming that the 
property in question which was managed by the Household 
I 
Department of the Holkar State was the exclusive and 
individual property of the Maharaja and not the property of 
the appellant-State - In the alternative seeking declaration D 
to be 'Bhumiswami' of the land uls. 158(2) of Land Revenue 
Code - Maintainability of the suit - Held: The right of the 
plaintiff flows from the Covenant whereby the Maharaja of 
Holkar and the other princely States agreed to merge with 
the dominion of India - Therefore, the relief sought by the E 
plaintiff falls within the ambit of Art. 363 and hence the suit is 
not maintainable - Since the claim of plaintiff as 'Bhumiswami' 
is by way of the Covenant which is disputed and the relief of 
settling these disputes is barred u/Art. 363, one cannot claim 
to be 'Bhumiswami', independent of the Covenant- Madhya F 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - s. 158(2). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELO: 1.1 
As per article 12(2) of the Covenant G 
(whereby the Maharaja of Holkar with othe~ princely 
States agreed to merge with the Dominion oflndia), the 
Maharaja of Holkar has furnished the
details of the 
properties under different Heads. The Suit scheduled 
properties which are in possession of the plaintiff finds H 
737
738 
SUPREMt COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A no mention in the entire list of properties, but the plaintiff 
derives his title to the property from Clause 14 of the list 
of properties which speaks about all properties under 
the control of the Household Department. The Covenant 
is the source of title for the plaintiff. By all means the 
B right of the plaintiff flows from the Covenant by virtue of 
which the plaintiff claims title over these properties, 
which according to her are declared as private properties 
of the Ruler. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be 
said that the right of the plaintiff is a pre-existing right. 
C [Paras 28 and 29] [756-C-D, F; 757-A-C] 
1.2 A bare perusal of Article 363 of the Constitution 
and the relief sought by the plaintiff in the Suit in 
unequivocal terms attracts the bar contained in Article 
D 363. Covenant is an act of State and any dispute arising 
out of its terms cannot form the subject matter in any 
Court including the Supreme Court, and there cannot 
be any implied recognition of the property as private 
property at any later stages when an opportunity had 
E already been granted to raise issue in terms of clause 3 
of Article 12 before defined period; above all, the 
properties do not find place in the Covenant. In the 
present case, interpretation of the Covenant on the part 
F of the plaintiff that all properties which are in the custody 
of the Household Department are the personal 
properties of the Ruler, an
implied recognition is 
impermissible. Hence, the relief in the Suit falls within 
the ambit of Article 363 of the Constitution of India and 
G the Suit is not maintainable. [Paras 30 and 34] [757-D; 
759-E-G, H; 760-A] 
H 
Draupadi Devi and Others vs. Union of India and others 
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 223: (2004) 11 SCC 425; Madhav 
Rao Scindia vs. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 53: 1979 
(2) SCR 62; Karan Singh (Dr.) vs. State of J&K 2004
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
739 
USHADEVI 
(1) Suppl. SCR 43: (2004) 5 SCC 698- relied on. 
A 
2. As per Section 158(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code, 1959 in order to confer the rights of 
Bhumiswami, a Ruler should be holding land_ or he 
should have been entitled to hold land as such Ruler by B 
virtue of a Covenant or agreement entered into by him. 
The plaintiff/respondent cannot seek the status of 
Bhumiswami independent of the Covenant because the 
rights under Section 158(2) arise out of the Covenant 
itself. The source to hold the land arises by virtue of a C 
Covenant. When the right so claimed by way of Covenant 
is disputed and the relief of settling these disputes is 
barred under Article 363 of the Constitution, one cannot 
claim to be "Bhumiswami" under Section 158(2) of the 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, independent of D 
the Covenant. [Para 40] [762-H; 763-A-C] 
· 3. All the rights whichever pleaded by the plaintiff 
are the rights flown only from the Covenant. As provided 
under clause 12(1) of Covenant, admittedly by the letter E 
dated 29-9-1962 the respondent/plaintiff claimed the title 
by way of Covenant and not by any such tenancy rights. 
Hence, the respondent plaintiff cannot claim any right 
of tenancy over the Suit schedule properties and such 
plea is misconceived and she is estopped from raising F 
such a plea. [Para 39] [762-C-D] 
4. Even assuming that the properties in question 
are under the control of the Household
Department, still 
the plaintiff cannot succeed for the reason that Maharaja G 
of Holkar in the list of properties furnished has failed to 
mention these properties specifically, and interpretation 
of Covenant is not permissible as per settled law. [Para 
38] [768-A-B] 
H
740'" 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
5. Despite all the factors that the Maharaja and 
the plaintiff were in continuous possession of property 
and paid Tauzi for the properties, however long the 
plaintiff's possession may be and paying of the taxes 
will not g\l(~ her any right seeking declaration of 
B ownership when these properties are part of a Covenant 
and calls for an interpretation of the Covenant. In addition 
to this, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Additional Chief 
Secretary, Government General, Administrative 
Department, Bhopal, dated 1.i October 1962, wherein she 
C requested 'fbr a declaration of the Suit scheduled 
properties as the private properties as declared by the 
Maharaja of Holkar which clearly shows that the whole 
cause of action and the reliefs sought for in the Suit are 
0 based on the Covenant and the rights flown from the 
Covenant. [Para 37] [761-D-G] 
6. It is settled law that parties are governed by 
their pleadings and the burden lies on the person who 
pleads to prove and further plaintiff has to succeed 
E basing on the strengths of his case and cannot depend 
upon the weakness of the defendant's case. The State 
having alleged several things, has failed to mark any 
document to show that the properties were transferred 
F to the .Forest Department and the retransfer in the year 
1951 was without any authority of !aw. Though the State 
has filed certain documents before this Court, but as they 
are not part of the
evidence, they cannot be looked into. 
[Para 35] [760-E-G] 
G 
Case Law Reference 
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 223 
relied on. 
Para 30 
1979 (2) SCR 62 
relied on. 
Para 32 
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 43 
relied on. 
Para 33 
H
STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH v. MAHARANI 
74,1., 
USHADEVI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. A 
557 ... 558 of 2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2010 and 
11.02.2011 in Review Petition No. 396 of 2010 and First 
Appeal No. 421 of2001 of the High Court of Madhya' Pradesh, B 
Bench at Indore 
,, 
T. R. Andhyarujina, C.D. Singh, Sunny Choudhary, 
Shomik for the Appellant. 
C. A. Sundaram, Puneet Jain, Manoj Shr-ifllal, Manu C 
Maheshwari, Abhinav Gupta, Z. Anayat, Rohini Musa, Pratibha 
Jain for the Respondent. 
1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · 
lj, 
D 
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. These appeals by specialleave. 
have been filed against the impugned judgment and decree 
dated 13.08.2010 and 11.02.21)11 of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh, Bench at Indore in First Appeal No. 421of2001 and 
in Review Petition No. 396 of 2010 respectively by which the E 
High Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the 
learned Trial Court passed in favour of the appellanf/State, 
decreed the Suit for declaration of title in favour of the 
respondent and also dismissed the review petition preferred 
by the appellanVState. 
F 
2. The facts leading to these appeals, in brief, are that 
the respondenVplaintiff who was the daughter and reportedly 
sole heir of Maharaja Yashwanth Rao Holkar, the erstwhile 
Ruler of Holkar State filed the present Suit on 7th September G 
1964 seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent 
injunction in respect of the
plaint schedule properttes, i.e, Birs 
known as Bijasan,Ashapura, Bercha,·Mohna and Gajihata and 
alternatively sought declaration that the plaintiff is· the 
Government lessee or a Bhumiswami of the Suit schedule H
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A properties. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that these birs 
were initially under the control of the Household Department 
of the Holkar State. Sometime during the existence of the 
Holkar State, the work of cutting and collecting the grass of 
these four birs was made over to the Military Grass Farm of 
B Indore with a direction that the quantity of grass required for 
the purpose of household has to be supplied by them. 
3. During the lifetime of Maharaja Yashwanth Rao 
Holkar, he was depositing Tauzi assessmenVrevenue charges 
C with the treasury of Holkar State. On 31-08-1945, these birs 
were transferred to the Army Department of the Holkar State,· 
for harvesting grass, for a period of one year on experimental 
basis. Again on 22-01-1951, these birs were transferred to 
the Maharaja and from that date, these birs are in continuous 
D possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs family till the filing 
of the Suit. In the year 1948, Holkar State along with the other 
princely States was merged with the Dominion of India as per 
the Covenant dated 161h June, 1948, which was later on re-
organised as a part of the present State of Madhya Pradesh. 
E As per Article XI I of the Covenant entered between Maharaja 
Yashwanth Rao Holkar and Government of India, Ministry of 
States, by communication dated 7th May, 1949, the land in 
question being managed by the Household Department 
F became the exclusive and individual
property of the father of 
the plaintiff. As the property belongs to the Maharaja, even the 
Government demanded revenue qua the said land which was 
duly deposited by the plaintiff's father as well as the plaintiff. 
4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the State 
G Government appears to have passed some orders on May 2, 
1964 basing on which, the Collector, Indore had issued a notice 
on May 16, 1964 requiring the plaintiff to handover the 
possession of the land in question on the ground that the State 
H Government has declared the Suit schedule property as the 
property of the State. According to the plaintiff, she holds these
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
743 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.) 
lands either as an owner or as a Government lessee, and A 
Government has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Then 
the plaintiff moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 
57 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Code to adjudicate 
the dispute, but the same was rejected on the ground that they 
had no jurisdiction. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file B 
the present Suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. 
5. The appellant/defendant/State contested the Suit by 
filing written statement disputing the ownership of plaintiff over 
the Suit land. According to the defendant, Maharaja Yashwant C 
Rao Holkar was never the owner of the Suit scheduled property. 
Hence, the question of plaintiff succeeding to the property does 
not arise. The birs were the property of the Forest Department 
of the Holkar State. OnAugust21, 1926, the Cabinet of Holkar 
State transferred Bijasan Bir to the Household Department, D 
and later the remaining birs were also transferred on settlement 
of assessment. Later these birs were transferred to the Forest 
Department in the year 1930. Again in the year 1943, they 
. were re-transferred to the Household Department. It is the case 
of the defendant that in the year 1945, all birs were with the E 
Army Department of the Holkar State, which was made 
responsible to supply grass to the Household Department. At 
the time of merger of Holkar State with
Dominion of India, these 
Birs were with the Army Department and hence cannot be F 
treated as private properties of the Maharaja as per Item No.14 
of list of private properties and apart from all these grounds, it 
was urged that the Suit is not maintainable in view of the bar 
under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Basing on the 
above pleadings, the defendant sought dismissal of the Suit. 
G 
6. It appears that in the year 1979, Section 158(2) was 
inserted in Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. As 
per the said provision, the Ruler of an Indian State, forming 
part of State of Madhya Pradesh, who at the time of coming H 
into force of the Act was holding land or was entitled to hold
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A land by virtue of the Covenant shall, as from thedate of coming 
into force of the Code, becomes a Bhumiswami of such land. 
The plaintiff also seeks shelter under the said provision. 
7. On behalf of the plaintiff, several voluminous 
B documentary evidence were marked as exhibits, while on 
behalf of the defendants, only two documents were marked. 
The Trial Court has framed as many as 20 issues, appreciated 
both the documentary and oral evidence at length and finally 
by judgement and decree dated 9th march, 1992, partly allowed 
C the Suit filed by plaintiff in respect of three Birs and Ganjihata, 
and consequential permanent injunction was also granted. 
Against this, the State has preferred First Appeal No.148 of 
1992, and the plaintiff has filed First Appeal 119 of 92. The 
appellate Court by its judgement dated 24-03-2000 has set 
D aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for 
fresh adjudication by framing another four additional issues 
for trial. At the time of remand, it was further observed by the 
appellate Court that while deciding the matter again, the Trial 
Court will not record any further evidence nor will allow the 
E parties to make any amendments to the pleadings. 
8. The Trial Court after remand framed 24 issues, and 
after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, 
dismissed the Suit by judgement and decree dated 17-08-
F 2001. It is the specific finding of the Trial Court that
the transfer 
of Suit schedule lands to the Household Department in the 
year 1951 is without any authority and therefore bad; the Ruler 
paid the Tauzi from 1951, but there is no evidence to show 
that Tauzi was paid for the period prior to 1951; the 
G correspondence entered into by the plaintiff and her father with 
the Governme1t showed that the Suit scheduled properties 
were not included in Item No.14 of exhibit P.78; the plaintiff 
was not in possession of the Suit schedule properties either 
H in the form of ordinary tenant, Government lessee or land 
owner; that the Suit schedule lands were not allotted to the
STATE OF M~DHYAPRADESH v. MAHARANI 
745 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
Forest Department by the State; and ultimately, the Tria! Court A 
held that in view of bar contained in Article 363 af the 
Constitution of India, the Suit is not maintainable. 
9. Against the said judgement and decree of the Trial 
Court, the plaintiff preferred First Appeal No. 421 of 2001. The B 
learned Judge settled the following two issues for 
consideration: 
a. 
Whether the property in question could be treated as 
a private property of Maharaja Yashwanth Rao Holkar c 
at the time of merger of Holkar State with the State 
Madhya Bharat on June 16, 1948? 
b. 
Whether the bar contained in Article 363 of the 
Constitution of India applies to the controversy in D 
question so as to hold the jurisdiction of the Courts as 
barred? 
10. The learned Judge, by judgement decree dated 
13th August, 2010 set aside the judgment of the Trial Court 
and decreed the Suil, by recording findings to the effect that E 
on the date of merger, the Suit schedule properties belonged 
to the Household Department and that the land was transferred 
for a specific time and specific purpose; re-transfer of land on 
May 3rd, 1951 was in conformity with Item No.20 of Annexure F 
to exhibit P78 which provides for steps to be taken by Madhya 
Bharat Government to hand over the land; By virtue of Section 
158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the father 
of the plaintiff by holding the land, became a bhl!_miswami, 
and
as such, entitled for the benefits under Section 158(2) of G 
the Act; the Rulers who prior to their integration of their States 
with the Dominion of India were sovereign and after integration 
have become citizens of India, and their rights and obligations 
as citizens of India are recognized by the Constitution of India; 
after 1st July, 1949, even the State cannot raise the dispute, H
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A and mere executive order cannot be sustained unless it is 
supported by some authority of law; the Suit is not barred under 
Article 363 of the Constitution of India because it is based on 
the pre-existing right of the plaintiff and not based on the rights 
B 
flowing from the Covenant. 
11. The learned Judge considered the judgement of 
this Court in Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India, AIR 
1971 SC 53, Sawai Tej Singh vs. Union of India and 
another, AIR 1979 SC 126, Draupadi Devi and Others vs. 
C Union of India and others, (2004) 11 SCC 425, Dr. Karan 
Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2004) 5 SCC 
698 and distinguished them observing that in those cases, no 
declaration of properties as private properties was sought, 
and that the executive orders passed by the State Government 
D was not shown to be in accordance with law and such 
interpretation would lead to complete subversion of rule of law. 
Therefore, the dispute brought before the Court cannot be 
excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that 
Article 363 of the Constitution of India, bars the Suit. The 
E learned Judge distinguished Sawai Tej Singh's case 
observing that in the said case, the plea of the plaintiff to 
recognize the properties as private properties was rejected 
by the Government, but in the present case, private properties 
F of the Ruler have already been finalized, and therefore, the 
ratio of the said judgment was not
applicable to the case on 
hand; The iearned Judge, distinguished Draupadi Devi's case 
holding that the property in controversy in that case at no stage 
has been declared as the private property of the Ruler, and 
G hence, the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the 
present case, because in the case on hand, the properties 
are already declared as private properties. 
12. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that 
H the first and foremost question that arises is whether the High
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
747 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
Court had jurisdiction in a dispute arising out of the Covenant A 
dated 16.6.1948 between the Maharaja of Helker and the 
Government by the reason of Article 363 of the Constitution of 
India. The Ld. counsel states that the instant Suit falls within 
the two limbs of the Article 363 as the present dispute clearly 
arises out of the terms of the Covenant. The Trial Court, 
B 
therefore, rightly dismissed the Suit of the respondent, but the 
High Court committed a gross error by ignoring the 
constitutional provisions and settled principles of law. The 
claim for declaration of the properties in question to be the 
private properties of late Maharaja in terms of Item No. 14 of C 
the list of properties, was a dispute arising out of the terms of 
the Covenant, and it has been clearly mentioned in Article 363 
of the Constitution that jurisdiction of the Courts to adjudicate 
such claimswas barred. 
D 
13. Drawing support from Draupadi Devi (supra) 
learned senior counsel submitted that the dispute as to 
whether a particular property was or was not recognised as 
private property of the Ruler was itself a dispute arising out of 
the terms of the Covenant, is not adjudicable by Courts being E 
beyond their jurisdiction by reason of Article 363 of the 
Constitution. The origin of the Suit goes to the Government of 
India's letter dated 3rd October, 1963 rejecting the application 
of the respondent to include
the disputed birs in the list of F 
private properties of the Ruler under Item No. 14. Thus, the 
claim of the plaintiff is clearly a dispute arising out of the terms 
of the Covenant and jurisdiction of the Courts to adjudicate 
such disputes is clearly barred by virtue of Article 363 of the 
Constitution. 
G 
14. It is further contended that the High Court has failed 
to take into account the facts of the case in their true 
perspective and gravely erred in declaring that the birs in 
question are the private properties of late Maharaja, father of H
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A the respondenV plaintiff. The properties did not figure anywhere 
in the list of private properties of late Maharaja, nor the birs 
were ever accepted by the State as private properties and 
hence the respondent had never succeeded to the ownership 
of these birs. In the guise of "interpretation of the Covenant", 
B the respondent wants to usurp rights over these birs which are 
pure Government properties. Only with an ulterior motive of 
claiming ownership on these birs as if they were private 
properties of late Maharaja, the respondent wrote the letter 
dated 291h becember, 1962 to the Government of India, to 
C include the disputed lands in the list of private properties of 
the Ruler. These birs were in the possession of the Army Grass 
Farms when the Covenant was signed and after annexation, 
the Centre of the Madhya Bharat Army was merged with the 
0 Government of India and the Defence Department of the 
Government of India had taken over charge of these lands. 
When the Government of India took a decision in 1955 to close 
some Army Grass Farms, the disputed birs were ordered to 
be returned back to the concerned Departments of the States. 
E Therefore, the lands in question were correctly and intentionally 
not mentioned in the list of private properties of the Ruler as 
the same were then subjects of the Government of India. The 
respondent's legal notice dated 12.6.1964 to the Collector, 
Indore under Section 80 of
the Civil Procedure Code 
F categorically states her admission to the acknowledgement 
that after Federal Financial Integration there was an order by 
the President of India dated 6.10.1955 whereby the properties 
in question were ordered to be vested with the Madhya Bharat 
Government. The Government of India, by its letter dated 3rd 
G October, 1963 clearly stated that the re-transfer of possession 
of these disputed lands by the Holkar Army Grass Farm to the 
Household Department was unauthorized and has not been 
accepted by the Defence Ministry. 
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
749 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
15. Learned senior counsel further contended that the A 
view taken by the High Court qualifying the respondent for the 
benefit under Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code,_ 1959 is also arbitrary and wholly erroneous 
for the reason that under Section 158(2) of the Code, only the 
Ruler holding land by virtue of the Covenant or agreement B 
entered by him before the commencement of the Constitution 
shall be a bhumiswami. In the present case where the 
applicability of rights through Covenant itself is in dispute, no 
bhumiswami rights could be granted by virtue of the Covenant. 
If the plaintiff had paid any revenue for these birs that was done C 
only in ignorance of the fact and no rights would flow on that 
basis as these lands have never been given on lease by any 
competent authority to the plaintiff. Moreover, two birs namely 
bijasan and berchha are part of Reserve Forest Area and on D 
them no rights would accrue to the respondent. 
16. Summing up his arguments, learned senior counsel 
for the State, finally submitted that the High Court by wrongly 
appreciating the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by 
the respondent ignoring the constitutional provisions contained 
E 
in Article 363, and also did not look into the grounds of review 
in their proper perspective, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 
The review of judgement on the basis of discovery of new 
document
is also permissible in terms of Section 114 read 
F 
with Order XLVll of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus the 
decision of the High Court is ultra vires the Constitution and 
the impugned judgments are required to be set aside by this 
Court. 
17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the G 
respondent-plaintiff strongly raised an objection to the filing 
of certain documents by the appellant which were not exhibited 
before the Trial Court and submitted that when the appellant 
sought to place on record these documents for the first time H
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A along with the Review Petition, the High Court did not permit 
them to do so. Even while remitting the matter to the Trial Court, 
the High Court clearly mentioned in its order dated 24th March, 
2000 that "while deciding the matter again, the Trial Court will 
not record any further evidence nor will allow the parties .to 
B make any amendments in the pleadings". The appellant did 
not challenge this direction of the High Court and in fact, the 
appellant obeying this direction, did not produce any additional 
evidence or document before the Trial Court when the matter 
was heard again by the Trial Court. After so many years of 
C litigation, placing some documents on record for the first time 
before this Court cannot be permitted. 
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently 
contended that the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution is 
D not attracted to the present Suit as the respondent is neither 
seeking any insertion nor recognition of something which is 
already not recognised in the Covenant. The right of the 
respondent over the lands in dispute, as argued by the learned 
counsel, is not a right arising out of the Covenant, but it is a 
E pre-existing right as the property in dispute always belonged 
to the Household Department of the then Ruler. The 
respondent-plaintiff is neither disputing the Covenant nor is 
intending to meddle with it, but only seeking to establish her 
F right by the new sovereign
by referring to the Covenant. The 
bar only relates to any change in the Covenant, whereas the 
respondent seeks interpretation of the same in true sense, 
hence the bar under Article 363 is not applicable to the present 
case. The only moot question is whether at the time of signi~g 
G of the Covenant the Suit lands were under the administrative 
control of the Household Department or not, in the light of Item 
No. 14 of the list of properties furnished in terms of the 
Covenant. If a right is created by way of document, then 
enforcement can always be sought. 
H 
19. It is also contended that in view of retrospective
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
751 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
amendment made to Section 158(2) of the M. P. Land Revenue A 
Code, the bar under Article 363 is no longer an issue as 
"bhumiswaml' rights have been conferred on the respondent. 
Thereby, all rights arising out of the Covenant have become 
part of municipal law paving way for their adjudication in a Court 
of law. Also in the light of fact that the Maharaja had duly paid B 
the land revenue in respect of these properties and after his 
death, the respondent-plaintiff had continued to pay the land 
revenue and other charges towards these properties, they 
could be treated as personal properties of the Ruler. It is clearly 
available on record that in accordance with Section 158(2) of C 
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 the 
respondent's father had acquired the rights of bhumiswami 
over one of these disputed lands, namely the Mahana Bir as 
per letter dated 22nd July, 1963 of the Tehsildar of Depalpur D 
District, Indore (Annexure R/9). The said Section confers 
bhumiswami rights on a Ruler who was holding or was entitled 
to hold land by virtue of the Covenant. The respondent's father 
being bhumiswamifor Suit properties gave every right to the 
respondent to pursue the dispute, if any, over the Suit lands in E 
a Civil Court. 
20. Further, learned senior counsel contended that the 
Covenant had emerged pursuant to the merger of various 
Princely States of Central India for the formation of
Madhya F 
Bharat State. In terms of Article XII of the Covenant, a list of 
properties was furnished by the then Ruler which was duly 
approved by the Government of India and the disputed lands 
are ipso facto covered under Item No. 14 which expressly and 
in unambiguous terms specified that "all properties under the G 
administrative control of the Household Department of the 
Holkar State". Arguing that under the heading 'Miscellaneous' 
in the list of properties, before mentioning the details of 
properties, it has been specifically noted that "the above 
properties claimed consist in the main, of the following:" which H
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A leads to the inference that the list is not a comprehensive one 
and the words "in the main" provides that only some prominent 
properties are mentioned giving scope for other properties 
which are not specifically mentioned in that list. Even from 
record, it is evident that the properties in dispute were taken 
B over by the Army Department of the Holkar State in the year 
1945 "only as an experimental measure" for one year, meaning 
thereby, the actual control always remained with the Household 
Department of the Ruler. The communication dated 22"d 
January, 1951 (Annexure R/3) of Headquarters of Madhya 
C Bharat Force, Gwalior also supports this version, wherein it 
was clearly mentioned that the disputed lands were "on rent 
from Household Department of H. H. Indore". Other 
communications dated 21st May, 1951 and 30th May, 1951 of 
D the Army Grass Farms, Indore (Annexures R/4 & R/5) also 
categorically specify the handing over of these properties to 
the Chief Administrative Officer-in-charge, Household 
Department on behalf of Maharaja. In addition, Clause 20 of 
the list of private properties of the erstwhile Ruler makes it 
E abundantly clear that after merger, the Madhya Bharat 
Government shall hand over to the Ruler, the possession of 
such properties which are mentioned in the list as private 
properties but are under the control of Madhya Bharat 
Government. Accordingly, the possession of these disputed 
F
properties was given to the Ruler on 301h May, 1951. 
21. It is also urged that the right exists even independent 
of the Covenant as a statutory right. Respondent claims that 
as per Section 31 of the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy 
G Act, 1931, the Household Department of the Ruler became an 
ordinary tenant and by virtue of Government order dated 261h 
August, 1926, the Household Department had to pay at 
settlement rates. Subsequently, after the Government of 
Madhya Bharat came into being under the Raj Pramukh, the 
H Household Department continued to be an ordinary tenant in
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
753 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
view of Section 54(viii) and Section 54(xviii) of the Madhya A 
Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. Thereafter, under 
Section 185(1)(ii)(a) read with Section 190(1) of the Madhya 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 all ordinary tenants were 
conferred with bhumiswami rights. Countering the argument 
advanced by the State that these properties come under the B 
purview of reserve forest area and therefore, no bhumiswami 
rights could accrue on such lands, learned counsel submitted 
that the said claim has already been rejected by the Trial Court 
as nothing was produced by the State to establish thatthe land 
was forest land. 
C 
22. It is contented that the plaintiff's rights over the lands 
in dispute are therefore pre-existing rights which have been 
recognized by the Government of India by approving the list of 
properties, the Covenant and also in the light of Section 158(2) D 
'" 
oftheM.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Enforcementofsuch 
pre-existing rights cannot, therefore, be barred. under the 
provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution as the right sought 
to be enforced is only statutory one created under a municipal 
law. It is evident from the material on record that the right of the E 
respondent/plaintiff is a pre-existing right duly recognized by 
the sovereign and it was not created by the treaty. Relying on 
this Court's decision in Madhavrao Scindia (supra) learned 
counsel submitted
that an order of an executive body is F 
unautho.rized or legislative measure is ultra vires, is not one 
arising out of any Covenant under Article 363 of the Constitution 
of India. In such a situation, as rightly observed by the High 
Court, the present dispute cannot be said to have arisen from 
any provision of the Covenant. Therefore, the present dispute G 
cannot be considered to be falling under the purview of Article 
363 of the Constitution and the judgment of this Court in 
Draupadi Devi (supra) has no application to the facts of 
present case. It is submitted that undisputedly the proviso to 
clause 3 of article XII of the Covenant prohibits any dispute to H
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS-
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A be raised by anyone including the State after 1s1July1949. 
23. Having heard the learned senior counsel on either 
side, the following issues of law emerge for consideration 
before this Court: 
8 
c 
D 
1. 
Whether the dispute in the present case could be 
ascribed to the terms of the Covenant entered into by 
the Ruler with the Government of India thereby 
attracting provisions of article 363 of the Constitution 
of India? If so, whether the bar on the jurisdiction of 
Courts as envisaged under article 363 of the 
Constitution of India is applicable to the present case 
in adjudicating the rights of the plaintiff/respondent in 
a Civil Suit? 
2. 
W.tiether the Court was right in extending the benefit 
of bhumiswami under section 158(2) of the Madhya 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to the plaintiff? 
24. Before adverting to the various arguments advanced 
E by the learned counsel on both side and the findings recorded 
by the C0:1dfts below, we would deem it appropriate to extract 
Article 363 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: 
363. Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising 
F 
out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.: 
' 
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but 
subject to the provisions of Article 143, neither the 
Supreme Court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction 
G 
in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, 
agreement, Covenant, engagement, sanad or other
similar instrument which was entered into or executed 
before the commencement of this Constitution by any 
Ruler of an Indian State and to which the Government 
H 
was a party and which has or has been continued in
'STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
755 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
operation after such commencement, or in any dispute 
A 
in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or 
obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this 
Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, 
Covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar 
instrument. 
B 
25. A plain reading of Clause ( 1) of Article 363 
emphatically gives the impressior that no Court in this country, 
including this Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any 
dispute arising out of treaties, agreements etc., entered into C 
between the Rulers of erstwhile Indian States and the 
Government of India. 
26. Coming to the facts of the present case, on 16-06-
1948 through the Covenant that is exhibit P-79 Maharaja of D 
Holkar along with other Princely States agreed to-merge with 
the dominion of India. 
27. 
According to Article 12 of the Covenant, the 
Ruler can enjoy the rights over his personal properties which E 
are included in the Covenant for which purpose a list of his 
personal properties was required to be submitted to the 
Government. The said Article reads thus: 
( 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 first 
day of
August, 1948 an ·inventory of all immovable 
properties, securities and cash balance held by him 
as such private property. 
F 
G 
H
756 
A 
8 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
(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 may 
nominate in consultation with the Raj Pramukh 
and the decision of that person shall be final 
and binding on all parties concerned . 
... No such dispute shall be referable after the first 
day of July, 1949. 
28. As per article 12(2) of the Covenant, the Maharaja 
of Holkar has furnished the details of the properties under 
different Heads. He furnished the details under the Heads as 
immovable properties comprising of the properties inside the 
D State, outside the State, miscellaneous and at clause 14 
"certain properties under the administrative control of the 
Household Department of the Holkar State except such of the 
afore mentioned property with the Household Department as 
had already been transferred to the two guest houses at Indore 
E viz the ones situated in the building which was known as the 
Indore hostel and the other in Rajender Bhavan on the Bombay-
Agra road". 
29. The Suit scheduled properties which are in 
F possession of the plaintiff finds no mention in the entire list of 
properties, but the plaintiff derives his title to the property from 
Clause 14 of the list of properties which speaks about all 
properties under the control of the Household Department. The 
plaintiff to substantiate her case that the Suit
schedule 
G properties are private properties is relying upon clause 14 of 
the list of properties, the taxes paid by her and her father in 
respect of these properties, the communication dated 07-05-
1948 and letter dated 30-01-1956 wherein the Suit scheduled 
properties were retransferred to the Household Department. 
H Though lot of evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiff
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
757 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
about paying taxes to substantiate her case that the Suit A 
scheduled properties are the private properties of the Ruler, 
the core issue that requires to be adjudicated is whether it is 
the personal property of the Ruler or the property was belonging 
to the State. To give any finding with regard to the ownership 
of the property invariably we have to look at the Covenant for B 
the reason the Covenant is the source of title for the plaintiff. At 
any stretch of imagination, we cannot agree with the finding of 
the appellate Court that the right o~ 'he plaintiff is a pre-existing 
right. By all means the right of the plaintiff flows from the 
Covenant by virtue of which the plaintiff claims title over these C 
properties, which according to her are declared as private 
properties of the Ruler. 
30. A bare perusal of Article 363 and the relief sought 
by the plaintiff in the Suit in unequivocal terms attracts the bar D 
contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India. The Court 
below distinguished the judgment i.1 Draupadi Devi's case 
that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We are 
of the considered opinion that the rule of law laid down in that 
case applies to the case on hand. This Court in the case of E 
Draupadi Devi held: 
44. " ...... The Covenant is a political document resulting 
from an act of State. Once the Government of India 
decides to take over all the
properties of the Ruler, 
except the properties which it recognises as private 
properties, there is no question of implied 
recognition of any property as private property. On 
the other hand, this clause of the Covenant merely means 
that, if the Ruler of the Covenanting State claimed 
property to be his private property and the 
Government of India did not agree, it was open to 
the Ruler to have this issue decided in the manner 
contemplated by clause (3). Clause (3) of Article XII 
F 
G 
H
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
does not mean that the Government was obliged to refer 
to the dispute upon its failure to recognise it as private 
property. Secondly, the dispute as to whether a 
particular property was or was not recognised as 
private property of the Ruler was itself a dispute 
B 
arising out of the terms of the Covenant and, 
therefore, not adjudicable by municipal courts as 
being beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal courts 
by reason of Article 363 of the Constitution". 
C 
31. The above ratio laid down by this Court makes one 
to understand that prior to Covenant, the ownership of all the 
properties remain vested with the Ruler, but once the Covenant 
is entered into, the Government takes over all the properties 
except those which the Government recognises as private 
D properties of the Ruler. This court had categorically held that 
there cannot be any implied recognition of the property 
as private property at any later stages when an opportunity 
had already been granted to raise this issue in terms of clause 
(3) of Article 12 before defined period. In the case on hand 
E also, similar clause existed where a dispute to recognise a 
property as private property could be raised only before 1s1 
July, 1949. A dispute whether a property was recognised as 
private property or not was held to be a dispute arising out of 
F the terms of Covenant, thereby barring the Courts to adjudicate 
the same in view of Article 363 of
Constitution. 
32. Also in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia (supra), 
this Court while interpreting Article 363 of the Constitution, 
observed that a dispute relating to the enforcement, 
G interpretation or breach of any treaty etc., is barred from 
the Courts' jurisdiction. The bar comes into play only when 
the dispute is arising out of the provisions of a treaty, 
Covenant etc., as in the present case. This Court held that 
H Article 363 has two parts. The first part relates to disputes
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
759 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
arising out of Agreements and Covenants etc. The jurisdiction A 
of this Court as well as of other Courts is clearly barred in 
respect of disputes falling within that part. Then comes the 
second part of Article 363 which refers to disputes in respect 
of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising 
out of any of the provisions of the Constitution relating to any B 
agreement, Covenant etc. It was specifically mentioned that 
right as mentioned in Article 363 signifies property. · 
33. In yet another case, Karan Singh (Dr.} vs. State 
of J&K. (2004) 5 SCC 698, while examining the applicability C 
of Article 363 of the Constitution td the disputes arising out of 
a treaty, Covenant etc., this Court observed that all Courts 
including the Supreme Court is barred to determine any right 
arising out of a Covenant . The correspondence exchanged 
between the Ruler and the Government would amount D 
to agreement within the meaning of Article 363. 
34. In view of our above discussion and as settled by 
this Court in the above judgments, Covenant was an act of 
State and any dispute arising out of its terms cannot form the E 
subject matter in any Court including the Supreme Court, and 
there cannot be any implied recognition of the property as 
private property at any later stages when an opportunity had 
already been granted to raise issue in terms of clause 3 of 
Article 12 before defined
period; above all, the properties do F 
not find place in the Covenant. The plaintiff is trying to interpret 
the Covenant that all properties which are in the custody of the 
Household Department are the personal properties of the Ruler. 
We feel that such interpretation and implied recognition is 
impermissible as held by this Court in Draupadi Devi. Hence G 
the Court below erred in entertaining the Suit without properly 
taking into consideration the judgments and the proposition of 
law laid down by this Court in catena of cases. Hence we are 
of the view that the relief in the Suit falls within.the ambit of H
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Article 363 of the Constitution of India and the Suit is not 
maintainable. Accordingly first issue is answered in favour of 
the appellant/State and against respondent/plaintiff. 
35. Once we have given our finding on the 
B maintainability of the Suit, we need not to go into the other 
issues. But in view of the alternative argument advanced by 
the counsel, we are of the view that we should throw some 
light on those issues. It is the finding of the Trial Court that the 
lands were retransferred to the Holkar State in the year 1951, 
C and re-transferring is without any authority and it is bad. The 
Trial Court held that though it is the specific case of the plaintiff 
that they are paying Tauzi, there is no evidence to show that 
they have paid Tauzi prior to 1951 and the correspondence of 
the plaintiff and her father shows that the Suit scheduled 
D properties were not included in item no 14 of the list of 
properties and further held that Suit scheduled properties were 
allotted to the Forest Department. First coming to the issue of 
transfer of land to Forest Department, it is settled law that 
parties are governed by their pleadings and the burden lies 
E on the person who pleads to prove and further plaintiff has to 
succeed basing on the strengths of his case and cannot 
depend upon the weakness of the defendant's case. The State 
having alleged several things, has failed to mark any document 
F to show that the
properties were transferred to the Forest 
Department and the retransfer in the year 1951 was without 
any authority of law. Though the State has filed certain 
documents before us, but as they are not part of the evidence, 
we are not inclined to look at those documents. 
G 
36. The appellant State as defendant in the Suit has 
marked two documents. While remanding the appeals 
preferred by the defendant and the plaintiff, the appellate Court 
gave a categorical finding that the Trial Court should not permit 
H any of the parties to adduce further evidence. The remand order
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
761 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
of the appellate Court was not questioned by the State. After A 
the remand, the Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vlherein 
a finding was recorded that no evidence is produced before 
the Court to show that the property was transferred to the Forest 
Department. This finding has become final as no cross appeal 
is preferred by the appellant/State. Hence we are not inclined B 
to look into these documents. 
37. The plaintiff by marking the voluminous documentary 
evidence and by examining PW 5 and PW 7 established that 
they were in continuous possession of property till 1960, except C 
for a short period when the Suit scheduled p~operties were 
given to the Army Department. Tauzi was also paid by 
Maharaja and later by the plaintiff. The finding of the Trial Court 
in this regard that the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence 
to show that Tauzi was paid prior to 1951, is contrary to the D 
material on record. In spite of all these factors that the Maharaja 
and the plaintiff were in continuous possession of property and 
paid Tauzi for the properties, however long the plaintiff's 
possession may be and paying of the taxes will not give her 
any right seeking declaration of ownership when these E 
properties are part of a Covenant and calls for an interpretation 
of the Covenant. In addition to this, the plaintiff wrote a letter to 
the Additional Chief Secretary, Government General,
Administrative Department, Bhopal, dated 1st October 1962, F 
wherein she requested for a declaration of the Suit scheduled 
properties as the private properties as declared by the 
Maharaja of Holkar which clearly shows that the whole cause 
of action and the reliefs sought for in the Suit are based on the 
Covenant and the rights flown from the Covenant. 
G 
38. We are not inclined to go into the discussion 
whether the re-transfer of land is without authority or not, 
whether these properties are under the control of Household 
Department as it amounts to deciding the dispute arising out H
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A of the Covenant, which is barred under Article 363 of the 
Constitution of India. Even assuming for a minute that these 
properties are under the control of the Household Department, 
still the plaintiff cannot succeed for the reason that Maharaja 
of Holkar in the list of properties furnished has failed to mention 
B these properties specifically, and interpretation of Covenant 
is not permissible as per settled law. 
39. The other finding which we are not able to accept is 
that the Maharaja is the owner as well as the tenant of the 
C property. All the rights whichever pleaded by the plaintiff are 
the rights flown only from the Covenant. As provided under 
clause 12(1) of Covenant, admittedly by the letter dated 29-9-
1962 the respondenUplaintiff claimed the title by way of 
Covenant and not by any such tenancy rights. Hence, the 
D respondent plaintiff cannot claim any right of tenancy over the 
Suit schedule properties and such plea is misconceived and 
she is estopped from raising such a plea. 
40. Now we would like to deal with the other issue i.e., 
E applicability of Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code, 1959. The said Section came into force with 
retrospective effect from October 2, 1959 and reads thus: 
158(2): A Ruler of an Indian State forming part of the State 
F 
of Madhya Pradesh who at the time of coming into force 
of this Code, was holding land or was entitled to hold 
land as such Ruler
by virtue of the Covenant or agreement 
entered into by him before the commencement of the 
Constitution, shall, as from the date of coming into force 
G 
of this Code, be a Bhumiswami of such land under the 
Code and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities 
conferred and imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under 
this Code. 
H As per Section 158(2) in order to confer the rights of
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
763 
USHADEVI [N. V. RAMANA, J.] 
Bhumiswami a Ruler should be holding land or he should have A 
been entitled to hold land as such Ruler by virtue of a Covenant 
or agreement entered into by him. The plaintiff/respondent 
cannot seek the status of Bhumiswami independent of the 
Covenant be'cause the rights under Section 158(2) arise out 
of the Covenant itself. The source to hold the land arises by B 
virtue of a Covenant. When the right so claimed by way of 
Covenant is disputed and the relief of settling these disputes 
is barred under Article 363 of the Constitution, in our 
considered view, one cannot claim to be "Bhumiswamt" under 
Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, C 
independent of the Covenant. Accordingly, this issue is held in 
favour of appellant/State and against the respondent/plaintiff. 
Hence we are of the considered opinion that the Suit filed by 
the plaintiff for declaration and injunction is barred under Article D 
363 of the Constitution of India and the plaintiff is not entitled 
for any relief under Section 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Land Revenue Code claiming the rights of Bhumiswami. 
41. 
For all the foregoing reasons, we allow these 
appeals by setting aside the impugned judgments of the High E 
Court and consequently the Suit is dismissed. However, there 
shall be no order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals allowed. 
F