Article 363 Bars Court Interference in Disputes from Pre-Constitution Royal Covenants: Rajasthan HC Rejects Plaints Under O7R11 CPC - 2025-05-07

Rajasthan High Court: Suits by Jaipur Royals Over Covenant Properties Barred by Article 363

Jaipur , Rajasthan - In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for disputes stemming from pre-Independence agreements with princely states, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain of the Rajasthan High Court on April 17, 2025, held that civil suits concerning rights and obligations under such covenants are barred from judicial review by Article 363 of the Constitution of India. The Court allowed four civil revision petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan, setting aside trial court orders and consequently rejecting plaints filed by the Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Second Museum Trust and members of the Jaipur royal family, including Rajmata Padmini Devi .

The plaints sought possession, injunctions, and mesne profits for several prime properties in Jaipur , including parts of the City Palace, the Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), and the Rajender Hazari Guards Building, which were subjects of a Covenant dated March 30, 1949, between the then Maharaja of Jaipur and the Union of India.

Case Background: Disputes Over Historic Properties

The core issue revolved around four separate civil suits. The plaintiffs, successors to the erstwhile rulers of Jaipur and a trust managing some properties, claimed rights over these properties, alleging that the State of Rajasthan, which was permitted to use them for "official purposes" under the 1949 Covenant, had either abandoned such use, allowed the properties to fall into disrepair, or was attempting to use them for non-official, commercial purposes. They sought repossession and substantial mesne profits, running into crores per month.

The properties in question included: * Properties managed by the Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Second Museum Trust (Suit No. 66/2019). * "Rajender Hazari Guards Building (Old Police Headquarters)" (Suit No. 6/2023). * " Jaipur Account Offices and Jaipur Treasury" (Suit No. 14/2023). * "Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha)" (Suit No. 9/2023).

The State of Rajasthan had filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in each suit, arguing for their rejection on the grounds that they were barred by Article 363 of the Constitution. The respective trial courts had dismissed these applications, generally holding that the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (State of Rajasthan): Led by Additional Advocate General Mr. Bharat Vyas, the State argued that Article 363 creates an absolute bar on courts adjudicating disputes arising from any provision of a treaty, agreement, or covenant entered into by a ruler of an Indian State before the Constitution's commencement. Since the plaintiffs' claims were rooted in the 1949 Covenant, the suits were not maintainable. They emphasized that the terms "license" or "licensee" were not in the covenant, and the State's right to use the properties for official purposes was established therein.

Respondents ( Jaipur Royal Family/Trust): Represented by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others, the respondents contended that their suits were based on rights accrued under general civil law and did not seek an interpretation of the covenant. They argued that the issue of jurisdiction was a triable issue and that they could not be left remediless, especially when properties were allegedly in dilapidated condition or being considered for commercial use, contrary to the covenant's spirit.

High Court's Rationale and Key Findings

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain , in a common order for all four revision petitions, meticulously examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the overriding nature of Article 363.

On Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Rejection of Plaint): The Court reiterated established principles that for deciding such an application, only the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents are germane. If a plaint, on a meaningful reading, appears vexatious, meritless, or barred by any law, it must be rejected to prevent protraction of sham litigation. > "If law is clear and suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily be rejected at very threshold." (Para 24)

On Article 363 of the Constitution: The Court underscored that Article 363 imposes a clear bar on the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court (except for advisory opinions under Article 143), in disputes arising from pre-Constitution covenants. > "The language used under Article 363 bar the jurisdiction of the Courts in dispute arising out of treaties, agreements, engagements, sanad or similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the commencement of the constitution between the Ruler of Indian States and the Union of India or its predecessors." (Para 29)

The judgment extensively relied on Supreme Court precedents like State of Seraikella vs Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 253), which established that Article 363 overrides other constitutional provisions, and Karan Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (MANU/SC/0332/2004), which affirmed that any right arising out of such treaties is barred from court determination.

Application to the Instant Suits: The High Court found that the plaintiffs' claims for possession and mesne profits were directly linked to the rights and obligations flowing from the 1949 Covenant. The Covenant itself stipulated the terms of use for these properties. Referring to the Covenant's terms regarding specific buildings like the Jaipur Accounts Offices, Treasury, Jaleb Chowk, Town Hall, and Rajendra Hazari Guards buildings, the Court noted: > "The provision makes abundantly clear that Jaipur Account Offices and Jaipur Treasury, Jaleb Chowk, Town Hall and Rajendra Hazari Guard Buildings will be used by State Government for official purposes and they are required to be maintained by the Government." (Para 38) And further: > "The State Government which was given the right of use without prescribing any condition has a right to continue to occupy these properties forever and to use same only for official purposes." (Para 39)

The Court also observed that "official purpose" does not include commercial ventures like shopping malls or galleries and that the properties were meant to be preserved for future successors but used by the Government for official purposes.

On Duties of Public Servants: The Court made strong observations regarding the conduct of public officials, emphasizing that they are bound by the law and must protect public interest. It noted concerns about attempts to convert these historic properties for commercial use. > "No public servant whether he is member of top executive or subordinate executive can act contrary to law of the land... It is always expected from a public servant to remain transparent and accountable for their action but in case he fails in his duty then certainly he is liable for action(s)..." (Paras 43, 47)

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the trial courts had erred in not appreciating the clear bar imposed by Article 363. > "The civil suit(s) filed by the plaintiff(s) are not maintainable as same are barred by law and the order(s) passed by the Trial Court(s) are illegal, perverse and contrary to the provision of law." (Para 49)

Consequently, all four revision petitions (S.B. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 70/2020, 152/2023, 159/2023, and 160/2023) were allowed. The orders of the trial courts dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications were set aside, and the applications were allowed, leading to the rejection of the underlying civil suits.

This judgment reinforces the constitutional limitation on judicial intervention in matters arising from pre-Constitution agreements with former princely states, directing parties to seek remedies, if any, outside the ordinary civil court system for disputes directly concerning the terms of such historical covenants. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan.