Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 658
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : M.N.Venkatachaliah
Maharaja Kumar, Kharak Singh: Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 5/9/95
Advocates Appeared: Bansal G.K. : Bhandare M.C. : Bhardwaj Shailendra : Dhamija A.P. : Jain S.K. : Puri H.K. : Sen A.K. : Yadav Ranbir
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.P.Dhamija, G.K.BANSAL, H.K.PURI, M.C.BHANDARE, Ranbir Yadav, S.K.JAIN, SHAILENDRA BHARDVAJ
Headnote:
Indian Independence Act, 1947 - States Reorganization Act, 1956 – Constitution of India - Against the judgments – Claim of compensation - Whether suit of plaintiff is within Limitation - Whether claim of plaintiff is justifiable - appellant in each of present appeals, who were the brothers of Maharaja Ruler of erstwhile State long after its accession to Indian Dominion and its subsequent merger in PEPSU and further merger of PEPSU in State of Punjab, filed two original suits court of Sub-Judge First Class Patiala for recovery of possession situated in Village District Patiala - to be referred to hereinafter as from State of Punjab, since once State property of the State of had become State property of the State of Punjab and was part of its State Forest. The cause of action for those suits was founded on a letter said to have been addressed to Maharaja Kumar by Maharaja while he was sovereign Ruler of the State – Held, result of the authorities then is that when a treaty is entered into by sovereigns of independent States where under sovereignty in territories passes from one to the other, clauses therein provided for the recognition by the new sovereign of the existing rights of the residents of those territories must be regarded as invested with the character of an act of State and no claim based thereon could be enforced in a court of law - It must follow from this that the Covenant in question entered into by the rulers of the Covenanting States is in its entirety an act of State - Thus when the claim for recovery of the possession of Bir, the right to possession of which was with the Ruler of but was vested in the PEPSU, any claim to be made for such possession is with reference to such covenant, which in its entirety, is an act of State, and therefore, such claim cannot be enforced by filing suits in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Patiala, a court of Law - Again, the bar for filing such suits, which is incorporated in Article 36 Constitution of India, reads thus - Bar to interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of Article 143 neither the Supreme court nor any other court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement 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 of the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor government was a party and which has or has been continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute 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 or other similar instrument – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.
(1) THESE appeals are filed against the judgments and decrees dated 9/3/1977 made in RSAs Nos. 1457 and 1458 of 1963 by Punjab and Haryana High court. Since common questions are raised in them for our consideration, they could be disposed of together
(2) MAHARAJA Pratap Singh was the Ruler of the Princely State of Nabha ever since the year 1941, which was then the subject-State of British Paramountcy. With the coming into force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, when the State of Nabha along with other Princely States in India got out of British Paramountcy and became a free and independent State, it acceded to the Dominion of India created under that very Act on subjects - External Affairs. Defence and Communications, falling in line with similar other States in India. Thereafter, the Ruler of Nabha and the Rulers of Faridkot, Jind. Kapurthala, Malerkotla, Patiala, Kalsia and Nalagarh who desired to establish a Union of States comprising the territories of their respective States with a common executive, legislature and judiciary by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), entered into a covenant dated 3-3-194S, which was concurred with by government of India by guaranteeing enforcement of its provisions. PEPSU when according to me said covenant, came into existence on 20/8/1948, the territory of Nabha State ceased to exist and became a part of the territory of the PEPSU. Subsequently, with the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, PEPSU, having got merged in the State of Punjab, all its territory which included the territory of Nabha State, became a part of the territory of the Punjab State.
(3) MAHARAJA Kumar Kharak Singh and Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, the appellant (since deceased by LRs) in each of the present appeals, who were the brothers of Maharaja Pratap Singh, the Ruler of erstwhile Nabha State, long after its accession to Indian Dominion and its subsequent merger in PEPSU and further merger of PEPSU in State of Punjab, filed two original suits on 13/7/1960 in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Patiala, for recovery of possession of Bir Bhadson situated in Village Agaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala - to be referred to hereinafter as Bir, from the State of Punjab, since Bir, once the State property of the State of Nabha had become State property of the State of Punjab and was part of its State Forest. The cause of action for those suits was founded on a letter dated 25/4/1948 said to have been addressed to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh by Maharaja Pratap Singh, while he was the sovereign Ruler of the State of Nabha.
(4) THE averments in the plaints of the said suits filed against the State of Punjab, as could be gathered from record in the present appeals, were in substance:
THAT Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh (Plaintiff in one suit) and Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh (Plaintiff in other suit) were brothers of Maharaja Pratap Singh who was the Ruler of Nabha State. That on 25/4/1948, Maharaja Pratap Singh addressed a letter (Public Witness 1/1 to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh which read: "Nabha 25/04/1948. My dear Bhai, Just a line to say that it gives me great pleasure to give you the Bir Bhadson for you to have it as your farm which I should like you to divide equally and have a common house. I understand that you may be returning to India with Maji or else .... You can instruct Chhotaji to do the needful for you. Hope you are keeping well and I am asking Chhotaji to deliver this letter to you with all good wishes from all and love. Yours affectionately, sd/- Pratap Singh Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, Nabha Algngein Lodge, 526 Stewast Ave, Ithica NY USA."
(5) THE said letter which was handed over to Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh for being passed on to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh since amounted to grant of Bir by Maharaja Pratap Singh, the then Ruler of Nabha State, made as its sovereign in fav
