1. Dispute over whether perpetual leasehold rights were coparcenary joint Hindu family property or part of an impartible estate governed by the Rule of primogeniture. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 2289
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indu Malhotra, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Trijugi Narain (dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sankoo (dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5740-5741 of 2015
Decided On : 10-12-2019
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate for the Respondent
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate for the Respondent
Impartible estates of former sovereign Rulers, governed by the Rule of primogeniture, retain their character as separate property even after the loss of sovereignty and the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provided they are protected by covenants or agreements under Section 5(ii) of the Act.
Headnote:
IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - CUSTOMARY LAW - RULE OF PRIMOGENITURE - MERGER AGREEMENT - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - LEGAL EFFECT - PROPERTY HELD BY RULER AS SOVEREIGN - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY - COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS - PERSONAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND DIGNITIES - SUCCESSION TO GADDI - PRIVY PURSE - DEMARCATION OF PRIVATE AND STATE PROPERTIES - CESSANTE RATIONE LEGIS, CESSAT IPSA LEX - RULE OF PRIMOGENITURE AND IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - SECTION 5(II) OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - EXCEPTION TO SECTION 4 - RECOGNITION OF RULERSHIP - RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY - COVENANT FOR THE UNITED STATE OF RAJASTHAN - ARTICLE XIV - PERSONAL LAW OF SUCCESSION - THAKORE SHRI VINAYASINHJI (DEAD) BY L.RS. VS. KUMAR SHRI NATWARSINHJI AND ORS. - PRATAP SINGH VS. SAROJINI DEVI AND ORS. - REVATHINNAL BALAGOPALA VARMA V. SHRI PADMANABHA DASA BALA RAMA VARMA (SINCE DECEASED) AND ORS. - MIRZA RAJA PUSHPA VATHI VIJAYARAM GAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR ETC. VS. SRI PUSHAVATHI VISWESWAR GAJAPATHIRAJ RAJAKUMAR OF VIZIANAGARAM AND ORS. - N. PADMINI AND ORS. VS. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. - TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH AND ORS. VS. BRIG SUKHJIT SINGH AND ANR. - BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO VS. LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO AND ORS. - KUNWAR SHRI VIR RAJENDRA SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - TALAT FATIMA HASAN THROUGH HER CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SH. SYED MEHDI HUSAIN V. NAWAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. - DRAUPADI DEVI AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose out of a common judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1930 of 1983 {Chandra Nath Kala (D) through L.Rs. v. Trijugi Narain (D) through L.Rs. and Ors.} and Second Appeal No. 2017 of 1983 {Sankoo and Anr. v. Trijugi Narain (D) through L.Rs. and Ors.}. The issue raised in the present appeals relates to the nature of the property, that is, whether the perpetual leasehold rights in plot No. 16 (Old Plot No. 9), Chaukhandi Kydganj, Allahabad-Nazul Plot ('the property' for short) was coparcenary joint Hindu family property or being a part of impartible estate of the State of Maihar, was clothed with the incidence of self-acquired and separate property.
Finding of the Court:
The property was a part of the impartible property i.e., the property though ancestral was not a part of the coparcenary property, but was a part of the estate of the sovereign Ruler, Brij Nath Singh. Further, Brij Nath Singh could transfer the property inter-vivos or make a bequest by way of a will. The contention that the property was a separate or personal property and, therefore, not a part of the impartible property has not been established and has not been proved by the Appellants by leading evidence and material to dispel the presumption.
Issues: 1. Whether the perpetual leasehold rights in plot No. 16 (Old Plot No. 9), Chaukhandi Kydganj, Allahabad-Nazul Plot ('the property' for short) was coparcenary joint Hindu family property or being a part of impartible estate of the State of Maihar, was clothed with the incidence of self-acquired and separate property. 2. Whether the property was a part of the impartible property i.e., the property though ancestral was not a part of the coparcenary property, but was a part of the estate of the sovereign Ruler, Brij Nath Singh. 3. Whether Brij Nath Singh could transfer the property inter-vivos or make a bequest by way of a will.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The customary law relating to impartibility of an estate and succession under the Rule of primogeniture, and whether it was applicable to the property. 2. The legal effect of the lapse of the sovereign paramountcy with the signing of the covenant and merger agreement by Brij Nath Singh with the Dominion of India and the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('Succession Act' for short).
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed affirming the final findings of the High Court. There would be no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- constitutional law
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the property was coparcenary joint Hindu family property or an impartible estate of a former sovereign Ruler clothed with incidents of self-acquired property. (Para 2 , 3 , 41 )
3. Impartible estates of sovereign Rulers are presumed to follow primogeniture, are clothed with incidents of separate property, and remain unaffected by the Hindu Succession Act. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 28 , 32 , 34 , 42 )
4. Impartible estates of former sovereign Rulers governed by primogeniture and protected under Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act are not coparcenary property. (Para 13 , 32 , 34 , 39 )
5. Appeals dismissed and the judgment of the High Court affirmed. (Para 44 )
6. What is the distinction between an impartible estate and coparcenary property under Hindu law?
An impartible estate, though ancestral, is clothed with the incidents of self-acquired and separate property. Unlike coparcenary property, members of a joint Hindu family have no right to partition or restrain alienation in an impartible estate. (Para 11 , 13 )
7. Does the Rule of primogeniture apply to the estates of sovereign Rulers of princely states?
Yes, in the case of a sovereign Ruler, impartibility and primogeniture are presumed to exist. The Ruler holds the estate as the absolute owner, and sons do not acquire an interest by birth. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 )
8. Did the merger of princely states into the Indian Union convert impartible estates into coparcenary property?
No. The loss of sovereignty through merger agreements did not affect the nature of the property or the customary Rule of primogeniture, as custom often outlives the conditions that gave birth to it. (Para 28 , 29 , 31 )
9. How does Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affect impartible estates of former Rulers?
Section 5(ii) provides an exception, stating the Act does not apply to estates that descend to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of an Indian State with the Government of India. (Para 32 , 34 , 36 )
10. Are leasehold properties acquired by a Ruler outside their own princely state treated as personal or sovereign property?
Such properties are presumed to be part of the impartible estate of the sovereign Ruler and are not treated as separate personal property unless evidence proves otherwise. (Para 41 , 42 )
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J. - These civil appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 12th September 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1930 of 1983 {Chandra Nath Kala (D) through L.Rs. v. Trijugi Narain (D) through L.Rs. and Ors.} and Second Appeal No. 2017 of 1983 {Sankoo and Anr. v. Trijugi Narain (D) through L.Rs. and Ors.}.
2. The issue raised in the present appeals relates to the nature of the property, that is, whether the perpetual leasehold rights in plot No. 16 (Old Plot No. 9), Chaukhandi Kydganj, Allahabad-Nazul Plot ('the property' for short) was coparcenary joint Hindu family property or being a part of impartible estate of the State of Maihar, was clothed with the incidence of self-acquired and separate property.
3. In order to decide the controversy, we would record the facts in brief.
(a) One Bachchu Lonia had acquired the property by means of perpetual lease deed dated 12th September 1873 executed by the Government. After the death of Bachchu Lonia, his son Ram Bharose by means of a registered sale deed dated 12th August 1896 had transferred the perpetual lease rights to Raghubir Singh, the then Maharaja of the State of Maihar.
(b) Subsequently, Brij Nath Singh had succeeded to the throne/gaddi of the State of Maihar. Brij Nath Singh vide registered will dated 11th February 1966 had bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse to Govind Singh, elder son of his first wife Surendra Kumari and rest of the properties including the property to his second wife Rani Tej Kumari for her son after making provisions for her maintenance during her lifetime. Brij Nath Singh had died on 13th October 1968.
(c) Notwithstanding this will, Govind Singh, elder son of Brij Nath Singh from his first wife, as peshwa and karta of the joint Hindu family, had sold the property vide registered sale deed dated 18th November 1968 to Trijugi Narain Dubey and Surendra Nath Prayagwal.
(d) On 20th November 1968, Chandra Nath Kala and Sankoo had instituted Original Suit No. 194 of 1968 for permanent injunction against Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath claiming right in the property by adverse possession for last thirty years. Later on, they had filed an application for amendment of the plaint as Vimal Kumar Singh, power of attorney holder of Rani Tej Kumari, had executed sale deed dated 6th June 1969 of the property in favour of Chandra Nath Kala, which application for amendment claiming title based on the sale deed was allowed by the trial court. However, this order allowing the amendment was set aside by the High Court vide order dated 10th December 1971.
(e) Chandra Nath Kala had then on 7th March 1972 instituted Original Suit No. 64 of 1972 for declaration and injunction against Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath, impleading Sankoo as the third Defendant predicating his right on the sale deed dated 6th June 1969 executed in his favour by Rani Tej Kumari. Sankoo admitted the claim of Chandra Nath Kala, while Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath had filed written statement, inter alia, stating that Brij Nath Singh had no right to execute the will in favour of Rani Tej Kumari inasmuch as the property was coparcenary property of the joint Hindu family. Further, Govind Singh being the karta of the family, had validly executed the sale deed dated 18th November 1968 in favour of Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath.
4. The trial court dismissed the two suits by separate judgments, both dated 25th March 1983, deciding several issues reference to which is not required in view of the limited challenge raised by the Appellants, albeit it was held that Brij Nath Singh could not have by a will bequeathed the property that belonged to the joint Hindu family and, therefore, the sale deed dated 6th June 1969 executed by Rani Tej Kumari was void as she had no title. Further, the transfer by Govind Singh as the karta of the joint Hindu family in favour of Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath was for benefit of the e
