Back
1960 Supreme(SC) 119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S J. IMAM, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Darbar Shri Vira Vala Surag Vala Vadia, Saurashtra, Petitioner
Versus
State of Saurashtra (now Bombay), Respondent.
Petn. No. 62 of 1956, dated 14-4-1960.
Advocates appeared
M/s. N. H. Hingorani and A. N. Sinha, Advocates, for Petitioner, M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen Advocates, for Respondent.
A.N.SINHA, N.H.Hingorani, R.Ganapathy Iyer, T.M.SEN
A grant made to a cadet (Bhayat) as an appanage (Kapal-Giras) is contingent upon the grantee's status as a cadet. If the grantee ceases to be a cadet, such as by succeeding to the rulership, the grant lapses and reverts to the State.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Nature of land grants - Appanage grants (Kapal-Giras) to cadets (Bhayat) - Termination of grant upon change in status - A grant given to a cadet for permanent enjoyment as an appanage is contingent upon the grantee maintaining the status of a cadet - If the grantee ceases to be a cadet, for any reason, including succeeding to the rulership, the grant lapses and reverts to the State - Such a grant is not absolute but contains an inherent defeasance clause based on the status of the grantee. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Fundamental Rights - Deprivation of property - Where a grant is conditional upon the maintenance of a specific status, the termination of the grant upon the loss of that status does not constitute an infringement of fundamental rights. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A younger son of a Ruler was granted a village in perpetuity as an appanage grant (Kapal-Giras) in his capacity as a cadet (Bhayat). Following the death of the elder son and the Ruler, the grantee was recognized as the Ruler of the former State. The State subsequently notified that the granted village had reverted to the State as the grantee had ceased to be a cadet. The grantee challenged this notification under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming the grant was absolute and unconditional.
Findings of Court:
The grant was specifically made to the grantee in his capacity as a cadet. The terms of the grant and the accompanying statement of rights indicated that the enjoyment of the property was tied to the status of being a cadet. Upon becoming the Ruler, the grantee ceased to be a cadet, thereby triggering the lapse of the grant.
Issues: Whether a grant made to a person in their capacity as a cadet (Bhayat) for permanent enjoyment as an appanage (Kapal-Giras) lapses when the grantee succeeds to the position of the Ruler.
Ratio Decidendi: The expression "given as Bhayat" defines the nature of the tenure rather than just the purpose. An appanage grant to a cadet is intended to provide for the younger branch of a family; once the grantee is no longer a cadet (e.g., by becoming the Ruler), the object of the grant is terminated. The grant is not absolute but is subject to a defeasance clause tied to the grantee's status as a cadet.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 Mote 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 follows the rule of primogeniture. Kapal-Giras means a grant in appanage as a birthright to a share in the patrimony.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
