2026 Supreme(SC) 618

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Tikka Shatrujit Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sukjit Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11179 of 2011
Decided On : 27-05-2026

The rule of primogeniture is confined strictly to the succession of the throne and sovereign titles. Once properties are declared private under a merger covenant, they lose their impartible nature and are treated as ordinary assets, devolving according to personal succession laws rather than custom.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 5(ii) - Succession to private properties of erstwhile ruler - Whether governed by rule of primogeniture or Hindu personal law - Merger agreement - Impact on impartible estate - Upon signing merger covenant and declaration of private properties, sovereignty ceased and royal estates ceased to be impartible - Doctrine of primogeniture applicable only to succession to throne and not to private properties - Private properties devolve under personal law. (Paras 48, 62, 65, 79, 94)

(B) Partition - Impartible estate - Property acquired from sale proceeds of ancestral properties held in joint names of family members - Liability to partition between joint owners irrespective of nature of property - Jointly held assets must be divided as per ownership records. (Paras 82, 88, 92)

Facts of the case:
Multiple suits for partition were filed by family members against a ruler of an erstwhile princely state. The appellant contended that under the custom of primogeniture, all properties were absolute and impartible. The lower courts upheld this contention, leading to the current appeal. The core dispute was whether properties declared as 'private' under the merger agreement devolved via the rule of primogeniture or through standard personal succession laws.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the merger covenant only preserved the rule of primogeniture relative to the throne and titles, not private property. Properties declared as personal under the covenant lost their sovereign, impartible character and reverted to the status of ordinary property, thus becoming subject to personal law. Assets held in joint names were found to be partitionable regardless of the ancestral source.

Issues: 1. Whether private properties of an erstwhile sovereign ruler are governed by the rule of primogeniture or personal succession laws. 2. Whether properties held in joint names acquired using family funds are subject to partition among co-owners.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon the cession of sovereignty and integration, the rule of primogeniture, which attaches to the sovereign throne, does not extend to private properties. Once segregated from State property pursuant to the covenant, these assets lose their character as an impartible estate and vest in the individual as an ordinary citizen, necessitating distribution according to personal law. Property held in joint names is divisible as per the contribution or joint ownership status.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; preliminary decree of partition to be drawn.