Summarize the following court judgment. on No. 62 of 1956. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. N.H. Hingorani and A. N. Sinha	 for the petitioner. R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen	 for the respondent. April 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR	 J. Prior to the integration of the Indian States with the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution of India there was in Kathiawad a State of the name of Vadia	 succession to the Rulership of which was by primogeniture. Its Ruler then was Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala Bavavala. He had two sons Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar and the petitioner Kumar Shri Vira Vala Surag Vala. Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar being the elder son was the heir apparent. On July 5	 1943	 the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala executed two documents in favour of the petitioner granting him in perpetuity and in heredity a village called ' Mota Pithadia ' in the State for enjoyment as ' Kapal Giras ' as ' Bhayat '. The word ' Bhayat ' means a cadet or the descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar 's family where the State followstheruloofprimogeniture. 'Kapal Giras 'means a grant in appanage as a birthright to a share in the patrimony. Sometime in or about August	 1947	the State of Vadia acceded to the Dominion of India on the terms contained in an instrument of accession then executed. Thereafter	 on January 23	 1948	 various States in the Kathiawad area entered into a covenant forming the United State of Kathiawad	 also called the United State of Saurashtra. In terms of this covenant the 523 assets of each State excepting the private properties of the Ruler	 became the assets of the United State. The covenant also provided that the Ruler of each State shall be entitled to receive a certain sum as his privy purse from the revenues of the United State	 to retain ownership of all private properties to be determined in the manner provided and to all personal privileges	 dignities and titles. The Government of India concurred in the covenant and guaranteed all its provisions. The State of Vadia was a party to this covenant and its assets therefore became vested in the United State. On September 13	 1948	 the United State of Kathiawad executed a fresh instrument of accession to the Dominion of India cancelling the instrument of accession executed by the covenanting States in or about August	 1947. On November 13	 1949	 the United State of Kathiawad agreed to adopt the Constitution to be framed by the Constituent Assembly of India and further that the Constitution of India as from the date of its commencement would supersede and abrogate all other constitutional provisions inconsistent therewith in force in the United State. On the promulgation of the Constitution of India on January 26	 1950	 the United State merged in the Union of India and became Saurashtra	 a Part B State mentioned in the Constitution. The United State and therefore its component States since then lost all separate existence. It is not in dispute that upon such merger all the assets of the United State became vested in the Union of India. On January 27	 1950	 Kumar Shri Krishan Kumar	 the elder son of the Ruler Darbar Saheb Shri Surag Vala died and thereafter on May 16	 1950	 the Ruler himself died. On February 12	 1951	 the President of India issued a notification recognising the petitioner as the Ruler of Vadia with effect from May 16	1950	 and he became entitled to the rights of the Ruler which the Government of India had agreed to recognise. These were the rights reserved to the Ruler under the covenant constituting the United State of kathiawad	 namely	 the right to a privy purse	 to the private properties and to the personal privileges	 dignities and titles. 524 On July 2	 1951	 the Government of the State of Saurashtra issued a notification declaring that as the petitioner had succeeded his father as Ruler	 the village Pithadia should	 pending final orders be treated as Khalsa or Khas village of the State of Saurashtra. The petitioner was then a minor and his mother submitted a representation to the Government protesting against the notification. No reply was received to this protest. On May 23	 1952	 the Government of Saurashtra issued a further notification which stated: " Whereas the village Pithadia in Vadia Taluka of the Madhya Saurashtra District was granted	 by Lekh No. 194 dated 5th July	 1943	 as Kapal Giras by the late Ruler Darbar Saheb Suragwala of the former Vadia State to his second son Shri K. section Viravala in the latter 's capacity as a cadet	 in appanage grant; and Whereas	 the late Ruler and his eldest son Shri K. section Krishna Kumarsinghji predeceased this second son Shri K. S.Viravala	 the latter has been recognised as the Ruler of the former State of Vadia with effect from 16th May	 1950	 by the Government of Saurashtra and the President of India as per Notification No. PD/MS/20 dated 12th February	 1951	 of the Government of Saurashtra Revenue Department (Political) published in the Gazette of Saurashtra and Whereas	 pending the recognition the Government of Saurashtra had ordered	 by Notification No. PD/148/20	 dated 2nd July	 1951	 of the Revenue Department (Political) that village should be treated as Khalsa village of the State of Saurashtra and whereas Shri K. section Viravala 's status as a Cadet has ceased and the object of the grant in appanage has terminated in consequence of his being recognised as the Ruler. Now	 therefore	 the grant is deemed to have lapsed and reverted to the former Vadia State now integrated with the State of Saurashtra at present known as the State of Saurashtra with effect from the date of Shri K. section Viravala having been recognised as the Ruler of the former Vadia State in succession to the late Ruler Darbar Shri Suragwala of Vadia State	 viz.	 16th of May	 1950 ". 525 The petitioner again lodged a protest against this latter notification but this time also received no reply. On March 9	 1956	 he filed the present petition under article 32 of the Constitution asking for the issue of a writ directing the respondent	 the State of Bombay	 in which State State of Saurashtra had earlier merged	 to withdraw or cancel the notification and to restore the village Pithadia with all collections and realisations made by it to the petitioner and restraining the respondent from giving effect to the notification. The petitioner 's contention is that the village had been granted to him absolutely and unconditionally for permanent enjoyment from generation to generation and the State could not resume it so long as any of the descendants of the petitioner was alive. He contends that President 's recognition of him as Ruler of Vadia did not affect his rights to the village. The respondent 's contention is that the grant was not absolute or unconditional but it was to remain in force so long as the petitioner continued to be a cadet of the family and that as on his being recognised as the Ruler he ceased to be a cadet	 the grant lapsed and the village reverted to the State. It is said that the Union of India being entitled to all the assets of the State of Vadia	 the village has become its property since the date of the petitioner 's recognition as the Ruler. The question therefore is whether the grant lapsed on the grantee becoming the Ruler. That is a question depending on the terms of the grant. Webb in his compilation called " Political Practice in Kathiawad " has defined a ' Bhayat ' as a cadet or the descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar 's family where the estate follows the rule of primogeniture. The grant was made by a document called a Lekh or a writing to which was attached a Hakpatrak which is a Statement of rights created by the Darbar to a Bhayat. Both these documents were registered before the Agency. The main portions of the. Lekh were in these terms: " Passed by Shree Vadia Darbar Shree Suragvala Bavavala	 to long lived Kumar Shree Viravala. To wit: the Rule of primogeniture (i.e.	 the system 69 526 of Heir apparent and cadets) having been applied to this State	 and you being our Kumar (SOD) younger than our eldest Kumar	 long lived Yuvaraj Shree Krishna Kumar Saheb	 you are	 by this Lekh	 given	 as Bhayat	 for permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras	 from generation to generation	 the village " Mota Pithadia "	 a village of exclusive jurisdiction of this State	 which is of our possession	 enjoyment and ownership	 with its village	 Tal (village site)	 and Sim with all their boundaries	 fields	 Vadis	 Kharo	 Kharabo	 etc.	 i.e.	 with all the boundaries of ' the said village	 as Giras. You may enjoy the revenues thereof from the beginning of the Year Samvat 2000. as Bhayat	 a Hakpatrak (statement of rights) thereof	 according to procedure has been given. The same has been attached herewith. You and your heirs and successors may enjoy the same. Map and Field Book of this village have been made	 true copies whereof have been got prepared and given to you ". The lekh conferred various other dignities	 privileges	 amenities and rights on the petitioner. Thus it is stated that the petitioner 's marriage will be celebrated at the State expense and the State will arrange for his education	 that no duties or taxes will be levied on the petitioner on account of his residence in Vadia proper	 that the petitioner 's complaint regarding Giras	 i.e.	 the village granted	 or any other civil matter would be heard without charging any court fee and he would be exempt from personal attendance in court in civil matters and that no process will be issued against him in criminal cases without the permission of the Ruler himself. All these dignities	 rights and privileges are appropriate to a cadet of the Ruler 's family	 but have no meaning when applied to a Ruler. In the Hak Patrak it is stated: " In future even if your descendants are joint or may have divided	 any one Bhayat surviving from amongst your descendants shall enjoy the Sudharo Giras and it Shall not 527 revert to the State till any one Bhayat from amongst your descendants is living ". It also states that the grantee will not sell or mortgage the Giras without the permission of the State. The grant and the Hak Patrak read together lead to the inescapable conclusion that in its true natures the grant is a grant to a cadet of the family and the grant enures for his benefit as long as he remains a cadet. The expression " given as Bhayat " is not merely descriptive of the grantee	 but indicates the true nature of the grant. Nor do we agree that the expression " given as Bhayat " merely indicates the purpose for which the grant is made but describes the nature of the tenure. The grant states in express terms that it is given as Bhayat for permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras	 which means that the grant is to a cadet as an appanage and continues from generation to generation as long as any of the descendants of the grantee is alive. But if the grantee ceases to be the younger branch and becomes heir apparent by reason of the rule of primogeniture or ceases to be a cadet or Bhayat for any reason whatsoever	 then the grant must come to an end. This is what the rights and liabilities mentioned in the grant itself and also in the Hak Patrak show; for example	 with regard to the right of succession	 the Hak Patrak states that even if one Bhayat from amongst the descendants survives he shall enjoy the Giras and there will be no reversion to the State. This	 in our opinion	 shows that the grant enures as long as there is a Bhayat. If there is no Bhayat the grant lapses. If on a true construction the grant is of the nature indicated above	 then no question of reading an implied term in the grant arises; nor is there any necessity of determining whether the petitioner has become a ruler in the sense in which his father was a ruler of the Vadia State. Whatever be the reason for which the petitioner has ceased to be a Bhayat	 either by reason of the death of his elder brother or by reason of his becoming a ruler in the limited sense of the Constitution	 he has ceased to be a Bhayat and the grant being given as Bhayat for 528 permanent enjoyment as Kapal Giras	 it has come to an end. In that view of the matter the petitioner must be held to have failed to make out any infringement of his fundamental : 'right by reason of the notification dated May 23	 1952. The infringement which the petitioner complains of is deprivation of his property by State action and he bases his right on the terms of the grant. If the grant is not an absolute grant in the sense in which the petitioner contends	 but is a grant which by its very nature contains a defeasance clause	 then the petitioner cannot found his claim on any violation of his fundamental right. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.

In the	 Indian State of Vadia succession was governed by primogeniture. The Ruler in 1943 granted to his younger son	 the petitioner	 a village in the State in perpetuity and in heredity for enjoyment as 'Kapal Giras ' as ' Bhayat '. In 1947 the State of Vadia acceded to the Dominion of India and by subsequent constitutional developments it became merged in the State of Saurashtra. After the coming into force of the Constitution the elder son of the Ruler and then the Ruler died	 and the petitioner was recognised as the Ruler. Thereupon the State of Saurashtra issued a notification resuming the grant as it was deemed to have lapsed and reverted to the former Vadia State. The petitioner contended that the grant was absolute and unconditional for 522 permanent enjoyment from generation to generation and the State could not resume it: Held	 that the grant lapsed on the petitioner becoming the Ruler and the State could resume it. The grant was to the petitioner as a " Bhayat "	 which word meant a cadet or the descendant of a younger branch of a Talukdar 's family where the estate followed the rule of primogeniture; as such if enured for his benefit as long as he remained a cadet. But when the grantee became the Ruler and ceased to be a " Bhayat "	 the grant came to an end.