Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHARAJA JAGAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
LT.COMDR.JAGMOHAN VERMA - Respondent
SuitInterim Application 8432 of 1993
Decided On : 02/16/1995
HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY - IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - SUCCESSION - PRIVATE PROPERTIES OF RULER - COVENANT - MERGER OF STATE - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - TAXATION - ADMISSION - CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. Private properties of the erstwhile ruler of Jaipur State did not become HUF properties by virtue of merger and accession. 2. The impartibility of an estate does not mean it is a separate or exclusive property of the holder. Where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint Estate of the undivided family. 3. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 5, exempts the application of the act from "any estate which descends to a single heir by terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India". 4. A declaration made by the defendant to the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities that the suit properties were HUF properties and be assessed accordingly, gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and accounts. 5. The question of estoppel will be gone into after recording evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Maharaja Jagal Singh, the plaintiff, claimed himself to be one of the coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). He based his claim on the grounds that Maharaj Sawai Man Singh was the absolute owner of the properties while he was ruling the State of Jaipur. After the independence of the country, the paramouncy of British Crown lapsed. Thereupon, Government of India entered into agreements with the rulers of princely Slates. The Jaipur State acceded to the Government of India on instrument of accession being executed by Maharaj Sawai Man Singh. The said agreement provided that the Manharaja would be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the private properties held by him.
Finding of the Court:
1. The private properties of the erstwhile ruler of Jaipur State did not become HUF properties by virtue of merger and accession. 2. The impartibility of an estate does not mean it is a separate or exclusive property of the holder. Where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint Estate of the undivided family. 3. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 5, exempts the application of the act from "any estate which descends to a single heir by terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India". 4. A declaration made by the defendant to the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities that the suit properties were HUF properties and be assessed accordingly, gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and accounts. 5. The question of estoppel will be gone into after recording evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the private properties of the erstwhile ruler of Jaipur State became HUF properties by virtue of merger and accession? 2. Whether the impartibility of an estate means it is a separate or exclusive property of the holder? 3. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 5, exempts the application of the act from "any estate which descends to a single heir by terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India"? 4. Whether a declaration made by the defendant to the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities that the suit properties were HUF properties and be assessed accordingly, gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and accounts? 5. Whether the question of estoppel will be gone into after recording evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court has held that the private properties of the erstwhile rulers of princely states did not become HUF properties by virtue of merger and accession. 2. The impartibility of an estate does not mean it is a separate or exclusive property of the holder. Where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint Estate of the undivided family. 3. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 5, exempts the application of the act from "any estate which descends to a single heir by terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India". 4. A declaration made by the defendant to the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities that the suit properties were HUF properties and be assessed accordingly, gives a cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and accounts. 5. The question of estoppel will be gone into after recording evidence.
Final Decision: The application filed by the defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
( 1 ) LT. COL. BHAWANI Singh, defendant No. 1 by this application wants the plaint to be rejected, primarily on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. This plea is based on the fact that Maharaja Man Singh was the absolute owner of these properties as ruler prior to the merger of the Jaipur Stale with Union of India and ever after the merger the Maharaj Man Singh remained its absolute owner. By merger of Jaipur State with the Government of India, these properties of the Maharaj did not become H. U. F. properties. Reference was made tothe recent decision of the Supreme Court in His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi and ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5857/83 decided on 17th August,1993. The defendnt No. 1, being the eldest son, after the death of Maharaj Man Singh ascended to the throne (Gaddi) as per the custom and the law-prevalant and also as per the Covenant signed by the Ruler with the. Government of India. The private properties of late Maharaj Man Singh after his death, became the absolute properties of defendant No. 1. Neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 to 7 have any right on the same. Hence the plaintiff has no cause to claim any partition or for accounts regarding the impartible Estate.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the objection raised by defendant No. 1, we have to understand the facts pleaded in the plaint. To determine this objection, we can only look to the averments made in the plaint itself. We cannot look into any defence pleaded or set up. The cause of action is nothing but bundle of facts giving rise to the claims made in the plaint by the plaintiff. These bundle of facts as a whole constitute the cause of action. Therefore, to determine whether the bundle of facts stated in this plaint show any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff, we have to see the facts averred in the plaint itself. Maharaj Jagal Singh, the plaintiff herein, has claimed himself to be one of the coparceners of the Hindu. Undivided Family (in short HUF ). He has based his claim, inter alia, on the grounds that Maharaj Sawai Man Singh was the absolute owner of the properties while he was ruling the Stale of Jaipur. After the independence of the country, the paramouncy of British Crown lapsed. Thereupon, Government of India entered into agreements with the rulers of princely Slates. The Jaipur State acceded to the Government of India on instrument of accession being executed by Maharaj Sawai Man Singh. State of Jaipur acceded by virtue of the instrument dated 30th March,1949. The said agreement provided that the Manharaja would be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the private properties held by him. The said Covenant further guaranteed his personal rights, privileges and dignities and succession to the Gaddi as well as those rights of the Ruler. On the merger of the Jaipur State, the properties held by Maharaja of Jaipur State were divided into two categories, namely, (1) State properties; and ( 2) private properties. The rights and privileges of the Maharaja and his family were guaranteed by the Government of India. The succession to the throne was to be in accordance with the law and customs of the Ruler. The immediate members of the family were to include the Maharaja, his wives, sons, daughter and Grand children. They were to be entitled to the privileges which they were enjoying at the time of the accession.
( 3 ) THE private properties of Maharaj Man Singh were incorporated in the said Covenant. Those were declared his private properties and were perserved for future successors. That all the private properties formed the corpus of H. U. F. which the Maharaja held for and on behalf of the members of the Joint Hindu Family as per the Hindu Law. The said H. U. F. consisted of Karta, i. e. Maharaja, his Maharani Sahibas, four sons, one daughter and two grand children. Each member of the said Hindu Undivided Family including the plaintiff was in constructive a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
