MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS.

ABCDEFGH1117MAHARANI 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 ANDSUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 5 – Raja Faridkot Estate Act,1948 – Succesion to the Properties left behind by the Raja , formerruler of Faridkot State – In 1948, the Raja entered into a Covenantwith the Govt. of India and executed Instrument of Accession, as aresult area forming part of Faridkot State became part of the IndianUnion – In 1948, “Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted bythe Raja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve tohis male successor – Succession to the properties of the Raja whichwere shown to be private properties in the Covenant – Raja hadthree daughters and a son, who predeceased his father withoutleaving any heir – After the accession was complete, the Rajaexecuted the first Will in 1950, bequeathing the specified propertiesto all three daughters in equal shares – In 1952, he executed secondWill 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 eldestdaughter – All three documents were executed before HinduSuccesssion Act,1956 – Ruler died in 1989 – Third

Will allegedlyexecuted by the Ruler in the year 1982, came into picture whichdeclared that the entire property would be inherited by a Trust,trustees of which would be his two daughters excluding the elderdaughter – Suit by the younger brother of the Ruler, claiming theestate left behind by the Ruler on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture– Eldest daughter also filed suit for declaration that the eldestdaughter was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the propertiesleft behind by the Ruler; and that the alleged Third Will executed bythe Ruler was invalid, void and unenforceable – Trial court heldthat the Third Will was not genuine; that the claim of the youngerbrother of the Ruler was not accepted however, the claim made by [2022] 11 S.C.R. 11171117 ABCDEFGH1118SUPREME 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 thatthe Rule of Primogeniture had no application; that the Will executedby the mother of the Ruler was proved beyond doubt on whichreliance was placed by the younger brother; that the succession tothe properties left behind by the Ruler would be governed by thepersonal law of succession; and that the third Will was a fabricateddocument –On appeal, held: In view of the specific finding renderedby the courts below, including the High Court, no case was madeout for

the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and successionbased on said Rule – As regards, the Will executed by Mother ofRuler, once the Will was proved and found to have been validlyexecuted, in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of motherof Ruler in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturallybe governed by the Will executed by the testatrix – Thus, findingsby 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 HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. NOs.2006/2018(O&M), 1418/2018 (O&M) and 2176/2018 (O&M).WithSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10211-10213 And 11206-11208of 2020Krishnan Venugopal, Gurinder Singh Gill, V. Giri, Manjit SinghKhaira, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., VivekBhandari, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Varun Chandiok, Riya Seth, Priya Kaushik,Ms. Deepanshi Ishar, Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Krishnan Agarwal, KaushikMishra, Mahesh Kumar, Ms Aashna Gill, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Vmz Chambers, Balbir Singh Sewak, Ripudaman SinghSidhu, Amit Krishna, Ms. Hanima Grewal, Jaswinder Singh, GagandeepSingh Mann, Tushar Bakshi, Yashraj Singh Deora, Arya Tripathi, Ms.Monika Dwivedi, Rajat Mathur, Jaiveer Shergill, Himanshu Bajaj, KaushalYadav, 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. forthe appearing parties. ABCDEFGH1119The Order of the Court was passed byUDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgmentand order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the High Court1in RSA No. 2006of 2018 (O&M), RSA No. 1418 of 2018 (O&M) and RSA No. 2176 of2018 (O&M).2. The controversy in the instant matters concerns succession tothe properties left behind by Raja Harinder Singh, former ruler of FaridkotState. 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 aCovenant on 05.05.1948 with the Government of India and executedInstrument of Accession, as a result of which the area forming part ofFaridkot State became part of the Indian Union. PEPSU Covenant (Exh.D-6) entered into by Rulers including said Raja Harinder Singh interalia provided as under:-1High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR ABCDEFGH1120SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.“Article VI(1)The Ruler of each coventing State shall, as soon as may bepracticable, and in any event not later than the 20th of August,1948, make over the administration

of his State to the RajPramukh and thereupon-(a)All rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to theRuler which appertain, or are incidental to theGovernment of the Covenanting State shall vest inthe Union and shall hereafter be exercisable only asprovided by this Covenant or by the Constitution tobe framed thereunder.(b)All duties and obligations of the Rulers pertaining orincidental to the Government of the Covenanting Stateshall devolve on the Union and shall be dischargedby it;(c)All the assets and liabilities of the Covenanting Stateshall be the assets and liabilities of the Union; and(d)The military forces, if any, of the Covenanting Stateshall become the military forces of the Union.… … …Article XII(1)The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled tothe full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties(as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on thedate of his making over the administration of that State tothe Raj Pramukh.(2)He shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh before the 20th day ofSeptember, 1948, and inventory of all the immovableproperties, securities and cash balances held by him as suchprivate property.(3)If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property isthe private property of the ruler or State property, it shall bereferred to such person as the Government of India nominatein consultation with the Raj Pramukh and the

decision ofthat person shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. ABCDEFGH1121Provided that no such dispute shall be so referable afterthe 31st day of December, 1948.… … …Article XIV(1)The succession, according to law and custom, to the Gaddiof each Covenanting State, and to the personal rights,privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler thereof is herebyguaranteed.(2)Every question of disputed succession in regard to aCovenanting State which arises after the inauguration ofthe Union shall be decided by the Council of Rulers afterreferring it to a bench consisting of all the available Judgesof the High Court of the Union and in accordance with theopinion given by such bench.No enquiry shall be made by or under the authority ofthe Union, and no proceedings shall lie in any Court in theUnion against the Ruler of the Covenanting State, whetherin a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anythingdone or omitted to be done by him or under his authorityduring the period of his administration of that State.”Schedule-I to the Covenant stipulated amounts of Privy Pursesand the amount with regard to Faridkot was Rs.3,81,400/-.4. Like other Covenants which were entered into around thattime, the administration of the State and the rights, authority andjurisdiction of the then ruler pertaining to or incidental to the Governmentof the Covenanting State vested in the Union.

The concerned ruler wasentitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of private propertieswhich were specified. The succession to the Gaddi of each CovenantingState and the personal rights, dignities and titles would, however, beaccording to law and custom; and Article XIV guaranteed suchsuccession.5. Though, in terms of Article VI of the Covenant, theadministration of the State was made over and all rights, authority andjurisdiction belonging to the Ruler stood vested in the Union of India. On18.08.1948 “The Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted by theRaja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve to his malesuccessor.MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1122SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.6. In the present matters, we are concerned with succession totheproperties which were shown to be private properties in the Covenant.Raja Harinder Singh was blessed with three daughters and a son namedTikka Harmohinder Singh, who, unfortunately predeceased said RajaHarinder 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 wasexecuted on 11.03.1950. This Will (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FirstWill’) specified certain bank accounts and amounts lying in those

accountsas well as four flats at Rohtak Road, Delhi, and sought to bequeath saidspecified properties to all three daughters in equal shares.8. The Ruler then executed the Second Will on 22.05.1952 whichagain dealt with the properties which were specified in the First Will. It,however, stated that the testator did not wish to leave any property infavour of the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. It specified certainproperties and stated that the properties would devolve upon the othertwo daughters namely Rajkumari Deepinder Kaur and RajkumariMaheepinder Kaur in equal shares. It appears that the eldest daughterhad married against the wishes of the father, which perhaps was thereason why said recitals found place in the Second Will.9. Three years thereafter, a registered Settlement was executedby the Ruler on 01.04.1955 in London which dealt with certain bankaccounts held in Grindlays Bank Limited, London. This Settlement,however, stated that the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur wouldnot be entitled to receive any part of the income until she attained theage of 25 years or judicially separated from her husband. Thus, unlikethe Second Will, the Settlement dated 01.04.1955 had not disinheritedthe eldest daughter.10. Theaforestated three documents were executed before theenactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,Section 5 of which Act isto 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 IndianSuccession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), by reason of the provisionscontained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of1954); ABCDEFGH1123(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of anycovenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any IndianState with the Government of India or by the terms of anyenactment passed before the commencement of this Act;(iii) the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the PalaceFund administered by the Palace Administration Board by reasonof the powers conferred by Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated 29thJune, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin.”11. The Ruler died on 16.10.1989 and during the Bhog Ceremonyheld on 26.10.1989, a Third Will dated 01.06.1982 allegedly executed bythe Ruler was read out and a copy of the said Third Will was handedover to the eldest daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. By the time the ThirdWill was allegedly executed, the only son of the Ruler had already expiredon 13.10.1981. The Third Will purportedly declared that the entire propertyleft behind by the Ruler would be inherited by a Trust known as “MaharwalKhewaji Trust” (‘the Trust’, for short), trustees of which would beRajkumariDeepinder Kaur and Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur, servingmembers of Board of Administration of

the personal estate of the Rulerknown as “His Highness Personal Estates of Faridkot” and one memberof Maharani Mohinder Kaur’s family etc. The document also dealt withthe functioning of the Board of Trustees and stipulated some conditions.12. Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, younger brother of the Ruler filedCivil Suit which was later renumbered as Civil Suit No. 4193/21-08-2010 claiming inter alia that by Rule of Primogeniture said KanwarManjit Inder Singh was entitled to the Estate left behind by the Ruler.Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the eldest daughter, who, according to theThird Will dated 01.06.1982 was not given any interest or share in theproperty, also filed Civil Suit which was later renumbered as Civil SuitNo.473/23-7-2010. The Suit, as initially filed, sought decree of declarationthat the plaintiff-Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was owner to the extent of 1/3rdshare in the properties left behind by the Ruler with a consequentialrelief of joint possession along with her two sisters. Apart from her twosisters, the Trust along with its Trustees were also parties to the Suit. Byan application dated 18.11.1993 amendment to the Plaint was soughtincorporating the relief regarding decree of declaration that the allegedThird Will dated 01.06.1982 executed by the Ruler was invalid, void andunenforceable.MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT,

CJI] ABCDEFGH1124SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.A common written statement was filed on behalf of the Trust andtwo sisters of the plaintiff.13. Both the Suits were taken-up together and the Trial Courtframed following issues for consideration:-1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the extent of1/3rd share of the suit property along with defendants no.1and 2 being daughters of deceased under the provisions ofHindu Succession Act and the plaintiff thus is owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property? OPP2.Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to succeedto the entire estate of her father being eldest surviving child?OPP3. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to succeedas sole owner under Raja of Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 (ActNo.5 of 1948) being senior most living child? OPP4.Whether the property mentioned in Annexure A1 is jointfamily and ancestral coparcenary property and late RajaHarinder Singh had no right to alienate in any manner? OPP5.Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed by HinduSuccession Act which had abrogated custom and plaintiffand defendatns No.1 and 2 inherited the property in disputein equal share according to Hindu Succession Act andplaintiff has become owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property?OPP6.Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder Singh of Faridkotexecuted a valid Will dated 1-6-1982? If so, what is

itseffect? OPD7.Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh executed a validTrust known as Faridkot Ruling Family Housing Trust withthe plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and deceased defendantno.2 being sole beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD8.Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts forthe period they have been managing and receiving incomefrom the properties left by the deceased late Raja HarinderSingh? OPD ABCDEFGH11259.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or misjoinder ofparties? If so, what is its effect? OPD10.Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose ofCourt fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is its effect? OPD11.Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try thesuit? OPD12.Whether the Trust known as “Maharwal Khewaji Trust” isa valid legal entity? If so, what is its effect? OPD13.Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh and defendantno.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh in matters of inheritanceand succession is governed by Rule of Primogeniture andin the absence of male lineal child according to custom,brother succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.14.Whether Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh defendant no.6inherited all the immovable and movable properties of LateRaja Harinder Singh under the law of Primogeniture?OPD-6.15.Whether according to Article 14 of the covenants of Pepsuto which late Raja Harinder Singh was signatory, successionwas

according to law and custom to the Gaddi of eachCovenanting States was guaranteed and according to whichplaintiff under custom is entitled to inheritance to the estateof Raja Harinder Singh under rule of Primogeniture andthe female heirs have no right to succeed to the property oflate Raja Harinder Singh according to custom and rule ofPrimogeniture? OPD-6.16.Relief.”14. Both the Suits were disposed of by the Trial Court vide itsjudgment and order dated 25.07.2013. The principal question posed bythe Trial Court was regarding the validity of the Third Will and afterconsidering the entirety of the evidence, the Trial Court found said ThirdWill not to be a genuine document due to a large number of suspiciouscircumstances which were also individually dealt with by the Trial Court.The Trial Court then considered whether the Rule of Primogeniture wasapplicable to the properties left behind by the Ruler or whether theprovisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be applicable. TheMAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1126SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.case set-up by Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh was not accepted but theclaim made by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was accepted. The conclusiondrawn 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 partlydismissed and partly decreed with costs and the Will dated 1-6-1982 is hereby declared as null and void, not binding upon therights of plaintiff Amrit Kaur. The plaintiff Amrit Kaur is entitledto joint possession to the extent of 1/2(half) share with defendantno.1 Maharani Deepinder Kaur qua the properties fully detailedand described in Annexure A1, except the properties which havebeen acquired by any State Government or Central Government.Trust which was constituted on the basis of the alleged Will ishereby declared as non-existent. The defendants are alsorestrained from alienating, mortgaging, transferring, leasing,encumbering or exchanging the suit property as fully detailed anddescribed in Annexure A1. Annexure A1 be treated as part ofdecree. Suit being maintained by plaintiff Kanwar Manjit InderSingh through his legal heir is hereby dismissed with no order asto costs. Separate decree sheets be prepared and copy of thisjudgment be placed in the consolidated suit. File be consigned torecord room. Compliance be made.”15. It must be stated that Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur had expiredon 26.07.2001, when the matter was still pending before the Trial Court.Said Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur was unmarried and died withoutleaving any heir or successor apart from her two sisters who were alreadybefore the court.16. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial

Court, RajkumariDeepinder Kaur, the Trust and the other Trustees filed C.A.Nos.1046 of2013 and 480 of 2017 while Bharat Inder Singh son of Kanwar ManjitInder Singh preferred C.A.Nos.1054 of 2013 and 1062 of 2013 in thecourt of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.Said appeals were heard together and disposed of by a commonjudgment dated 05.02.2018 by the Lower Appellate Court which did notfind any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court.It, therefore, dismissed the appeals as well as cross-objections preferredby the concerned parties. ABCDEFGH112717. 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 byits common judgment and order, which is presently under challenge.18. The High Court framed following points for deciding theappeals preferred before it.“35. Before deliberating upon the controversy involved in theseappeals, I would like to consider the following points for decidingthe appeals finally:- (1) Whether The Raja of Faridkot’ Estate Act 1948 is a validenactment and is applicable for succession to the Estate of Rajaby the plaintiff (Rajkumari Amrit Kaur)? (2) Whether Law of Primogeniture is applicable in the successionof Estate of deceased Raja Harinder Singh? (3) Whether Raja Harinder Singh executed a valid Will

dated01.06.1982 and Maharwal Khewaji Trust constituted thereunderis 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 DeepinderKaur 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 othersis 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 forsuccession to the estate of the Ruler. It was also held that the Rule ofPrimogeniture as pleaded by Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh had noapplication in the present case and that the succession to the propertiesleft behind by the Ruler would be governed by the personal law ofsuccession. On the question regarding validity of Third Will, the matterwas considered extensively under eight different heads and it wasconcluded that the Third Will was a fabricated document which wasshrouded with suspicious circumstances and that the succession to theproperties left behind by the Ruler would, therefore, be by intestatesuccession. The issues concerning the maintainability of the Suit werealso decided in favour of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur.MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1128SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11

S.C.R.20. On the issue of applicability of Rule of Primogeniture, theHigh Court observed:-“78. Now coming to the conclusion whether Law of Primogenitureis applicable in the succession of Estate of deceased RajaHarinder Singh, it can be seen that admittedly appellant in RSANo. 2176 of 2018 has claimed the property to be the ancestralproperty in order to attract the Rule of Primogeniture whichaccording to him exists on presumptory notion in case of rulers.Ancestral nature of the property can be proved only by way ofproducing Excerpt (Intekhab)/pedigree table, as per requirementof Volume 1, Chapter 9, Rules 5 & 6 of High Court Rules andOrders, and as per para No. 232 of Mullah’s Law. The propertiessituated in village Kaimbwala, Mauli Jagran and Manimajra-fortknown as Surajgarh Fort Manimajra and Hotel site No. 12 in Sector17, Chandigarh are proved to be self acquired properties. Noevidence has been led by the plaintiff/appellant to discharge theonus to show that the properties have descended from commonancestor and only by rule of descent and not otherwise. Appellantwhile appearing as PW-4 has not adduced any documentaryevidence to show that the properties in question are ancestralproperties. The succession to Gaddi of the Faridkot Estate wasunder the paramountcy of the British Crown. The successor wasbeing recognized by the Britishers only and the same was notautomatic, rather it

was subject to the approval/recognition by theBritish Crown. Primogeniture is not codified law. The allegedcustom i.e. rule of primogeniture has to be pleaded and proved byway of evidence. The person who relies upon the existence ofcustom/primogeniture has to discharge the onus of proving thesame to the satisfaction of the Court in the most innocuous manner.The custom cannot be extended by analogy. Specific custom hasto be pleaded with reference to necessary particulars in thepleadings and thereafter to be proved by the asserting party byway of cogent and admissible evidence.79. Prior to merger agreement, the property in question was heldby the late Raja as sovereign and there was no distinction betweenthe State and the private properties, as sovereign was owner ofall the properties. After the merger agreement and accession todominion of India, the properties were earmarked by late Raja as ABCDEFGH1129his personal properties for which he was competent to do so underthe Covenant. After approval of the properties in the list submittedby the Raja as his personal properties, the same ceased to beState properties. Reference can be made to para nos. 61, 63, 64,67 and 69 of Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. PadmanabhaDasa Bala Rama Varma 1993 Supp 1 SCC 233.80. On merger of Faridkot State with dominion of India, Rule ofPrimogeniture, if any, ceased to exist on account of Act of State.In

the Covenant dated 05.05.1948, there is no clause/article whicheither recognizes or guarantees the continuance of alleged Ruleof Primogeniture. The Covenant has been reproduced in the WhitePaper. As per Article XII of the Covenant, the Ruler of eachCovenanting States was entitled to the full ownership, use andenjoyment of all the private properties as distinct from the Stateproperties, belonging to him on the date of his making over theadministration of the State to Rajpramukh. As per clause 2 ofArticle XII, the Ruler of each covenanting States was required tofurnish an inventory of all the immovable properties, securitiesand cash balances to the Rajpramukh before 20.09.1948. Thisinventory is in the context of immovable properties, securities andcash balances held by the Ruler as private properties. On approvalof list by Rajpramukh, the properties in the hands of the Rulerbecame his absolute properties and he was entitled to deal withhis properties in the manner he liked. Once the properties havebeen retained by the Ruler as his personal properties aftersurrendering the sovereignty to Government of India, pursuant toCovenant, then the properties held by him are his private propertiesand other members of royal family had no claim. Reference canbe made to para nos. 69 & 81 to 86 of RevathinnalBalagopalaVarma v. PadmanabhaDasaBala Rama Varma 1993 Supp 1SCC 233.81. After submission

of list and approval of the same byRajpramukh, the Raja treated the suit properties to be his privateand individual properties, which is apparent from various TaxReturns submitted by him before the Tax Authorities, claiming thesuit properties to be his individual properties in view of Ex. D3/22to Ex. D3/36. The Covenant entered into by the Ruler is an Act ofState between two sovereigns. No action in a Court of law canMAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1130SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.be founded by any citizen of a new State. In the new set up, theresidents do not carry with them the rights which they possessedas subjects of the ex-sovereign and that as subjects of newsovereign, they have only such rights as are guaranteed orrecognized by him. Reference can be made to para nos. 11, 13and 14 of Dalmiya Dadri Cement Limited vs.Commissioner ofIncome Tax, AIR 1958 SC 816.82. The impartible estate of Hindu Undivided Family, if any, existedprior to Covenant entered by the Ruler disappeared on account ofan Act of the State. The territories of former State of Patialahave merged into the territories of India and all the joint Hindufamily property/impartible estate, which existed prior to theaccession have ceased to exist on account of Act of the State.The grant of private properties to the Ruler was an Act

of Stateand such properties cannot maintain the earlier character whichwas prior to entering into Covenant by the Ruler with Governmentof India. Impartibility of Estate ceased to exist on account of mergerinto the dominion of India and, therefore, Rule of Primogeniture,if any, ceased to exist on account of merger of Faridkot Statewith dominion of India. The guarantee under the Covenant wasonly in respect of succession to Gaddi and not to the privateproperties. The right to private properties of the Ex-Ruler dependsupon the personal law of succession to such private properties.83. Article XIV of the Covenant only recognized the successionto “Gaddi” and not to the private properties, as approved in ArticleXII of the Covenant. Gaddi and private properties are two distinctconnotations and it cannot be said that Gaddi included privateproperties in any manner. Clause I of Article XIV of the Covenantprescribed that the succession, according to law and custom, tothe Gaddi of each covenanting State and to the personal rights,privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler thereof is herebyguaranteed. Article XIV does not extend the assurance andguarantee to private properties in any manner. The guarantee withregard to succession, according to law and custom is given to theGaddi of each covenanting State and to the personal rights,privileges, dignities and title to the Ex-Rulers thereof.

There is noguarantee with regard to succession according to law and customqua the private properties. The Government never guaranteed ABCDEFGH1131succession according to law and custom to the private propertyof the Ruler which he kept after submission of the list to theRajpramukh. Reference can be made to White Paper on IndiaStates published by Government of India, Ministry of States issuedon 05.07.1948. Part XI of the Indian States under the newConstitution under the head “Guarantees Regarding Rights andPrivileges” and part VII “Settlement of Rulers Private properties”would show that the nomenclature has been reflected in the WhitePaper, wherein it has been mentioned that prior to the Covenant,there was no distinction between private and State property ofthe Ruler. In the White Paper, it has been mentioned that uponintegration of States, Ruler was required to furnish list ofimmovable properties, securities and cash balances etc. claimedby him as private property and upon approval of the same, theRuler was entitled to full ownership and enjoyment of privateproperties as distinct from State properties. The personal privilegesof the Ex.-Ruler and those privileges have nothing to do with thepersonal property of the Ruler. The guarantee or assurance are inrespect of personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler. Itdoes not extend to personal property which is different

frompersonal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler. In this contextreference can be made to the ratio of Sudhansu Shekhar SinghDeo v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 196(Five JudgesBench) and State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952SC 252 (Five Judges Bench).”21. It must be stated here that Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, insupport 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 clausesfind place in said Will.“The testator further wishes that half of the amount of BritishGovernment shall devolve on the Bharat Inder Singh son ofKanwar Manjit Inder Singh.Any residue left out of the aforesaid total estates belonging to thetestator shall devolve on Rajkumari Devinder Kaur.………..The testator further ordains that other than the propertyand estates mentioned above, any property or estate come herMAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1132SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11 S.C.R.way after execution of this Will she inherits or otherwise, thosepart 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 testatorson namely Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh his estate is to be dividedequally between Rajkumari Devinder Kaur and Kanwar BharatSingh. The testator expressly wishes that in the event of demiseof Rajkumari Devinder Kaur her shall devolve on minor daughterof Rajkumari Devinder Kaur namely Harvinder Kaur AlexandraFarinakis.”22. Having found that the Will executed by Maharani MohinderKaur was proved beyond any doubt and having concluded that thesuccession to the properties left behind the Ruler would be by principlesof intestate succession,the High Court observed:-“237………The claim with regard to succession to the estateand private properties of deceased Raja Harinder Singh on thebasis of Law of Primogeniture is dismissed, however the appellantwould succeed to proportionate share of late Maharani MohinderKaur on the basis of registered Will dated 29.03.1990 executedby her. Maharani Mohinder Kaur (mother of Raja) was alive atthe time of death of Raja on 16.10.1989 and she being one of thefirst class heirs of Raja would have succeeded share in the estate/properties of late Raja. Therefore, on the basis of deemedsuccession/inheritance by Maharani Mohinder Kaur on 16.10.1989and thereafter to the extent of share conferred by late MaharaniMohinder Kaur upon the appellant by virtue of aforesaid Will dated29.03.1990 (Ex-D-10), the appellant would succeed to the saidproportionate share in the estate of Raja in accordance with

law.”23. While issuing notice in these Special Leave Petitions, by itsorder dated 13.08.2020 this Court directed: -“Pending further consideration, all the parties shall maintain statusquo with regard to the properties involved in the presentproceedings. It is further directed that MaharwalKhewaji Trustshall file the statement of accounts for the last five years beforethe next date of hearing.”24. Thereafter, while dealing with IA No.99377 of 2020 movedby the Trust seeking permission to operate its bankaccounts for payment ABCDEFGH1133of salaries,taxes; towards utilitiesand maintenance of Trust propertiesand towards expenses of the Charitable Hospital run by the Trust. Aftersetting out details about such accounts and the purposes set out in theapplication, by its order dated 16.10.2020, this Court directed: -“Since the activities undertaken by the Trust are in the natureof running of a Hospital and other philanthropic causes, at thisstage, we permit the applicant trust to operate the accountsmentioned in paragraph 12 of the application strictly for thepurposes enumerated at Serial Nos.2 to 7 in paragraph 8 of theapplication.The details of all the expenses so incurred as well as thecredits received shall be placed on record periodically; the FirstReport shall be filed on or before 30.10.2020; and the SecondReport shall thereafter be submitted on or before 30.11.2020.The Registry

is directed to send a copy of this order to theBanks mentioned in paragraph 12.The concerned Bank Managers are also directed to sendthe Statement of Accounts regarding respective Accounts for theperiod 01.06.2020 to 30.10.2020. The details shall be furnished tothis Court on or before 10.11.2020. The details in respect of themonth of November 2020 shall be furnished on or before05.12.2020.”25. In Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020, wehave heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned SeniorAdvocates on behalf of Rajkumari Deepinder Kaur, the Trust and itsTrustees. Mr. Rohatgi concentrated on issues concerning frame of Suitand limitation. In his submission, the Suit as amended, was hit by provisionsof Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the claim wascompletely time barred. Mr. Dwivedi concentrated on matters concerningthe validity and reliability of the Third Will and took us through the evidenceon record.Since the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants weredealt with by all three Courts below extensively, we do not find anyreason to upset the concurrent view taken by the Courts below. TheSpecial Leave Petition (C)Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020 are, therefore,dismissed without any order as to costs.MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI] ABCDEFGH1134SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 11

S.C.R.26. In Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 11206-11208 of 2020preferred by Bharat InderSingh son of Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, Mr.Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for thepetitioners has submitted that by Rule of Primogeniture the propertiesleft behind by the Ruler must come in the hands of the male successornamely Kunwar Manjit Inder Singh, followed by his son Bharat InderSingh. In view of the specific finding rendered by the courts below,including the High Court, in our view, no case was made out for theapplicability 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 devoidof 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, learnedSenior Advocate appeared in support of the petition has sought to assailthe findings with regard to the effect of the Will executed by MaharaniMohinder Kaur and the conclusions drawn by the High Court in thatbehalf. Once the will was proved and found to have been validly executed,in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of Maharani MohinderKaur in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturally begoverned by the Will executed by the

testatrix. The findings rendered bythe High Court were, therefore, fully justified and there is no reason toentertain any challenge in that behalf. Special Leave Petition(Civil)Nos.10211-10213 of 2020 are, therefore, dismissed without anyorder as to costs.28. Having dealt with the challenges raised in the petition, wedirect as under:-a)All reports statements of accounts and other documents,lodged with this Court, pursuant to interim directions issuedby this Court, shall immediately be sent by the Registry ofthis Court to the Trial Court.b)The Trust shall be entitled to run the Charitable Hospitalonly upto 30.09.2022, whereafter all the aspects ofmanagement, finance and other control including the needfor appointment of a Receiver shall be subject to such ordersas may be passed by the Court executing the decree in theinstant matters. ABCDEFGH1135c)Rest of the properties in the hands of the Trust and/or anyother persons shall be maintained in the same form by allthe concerned, till appropriate orders are passed by the Courtexecuting the decree passed in the instant matters.d)With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions aredisposed of.Nidhi JainPetitions disposed of.(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. v. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]