Back
High Court Of Delhi
DROPADI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 654 of 1967
Decided On : 04/12/1989
B. N. KIRPAL ( 1 ) THE main question which arises in this suit, filed nearly 29 years ago, is as to whom did the impugned property in Delhi belong.
Fact of the Case:
The suit property had been declared to be state property and not the personal property of the late Maharaja of Kapurthala andthat the said question was no longer justiciable.
Finding of the Court:
The property in question was purchased by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in his own individual name and capacity and not in his capacity as a sovereign ruler of the Kapurthala State.
Issues: 1. Was the property in dispute personally owned by the father of defendant 3, and did he sell that to plaintiff and Dewan Jarmani Das? 2. Has the said Jarmani Das transferred his interest in the said property in favour of Plaintiff? If so to what effect? 3. Was the said Jarmani Das added in the said sale in collusion with the vendor and the plaintiff? If so to what effect? 4. Was the property in dispute declared as the state property of erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union? If so, to what effect? 4a. Could the said declaration be effected and was that done in accordance with law? 4b. Could. the saiddeclaration violate the principles of natural justice? If so to what effect? 5. Did the said declaration constitute as an "act of State", and therefore the suit is not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Court? 6. Was there any arbitration clause in the Covenants of Instrument of Accession? If so, to what effect? 7. What is the effect of the said arbitration clause having been not invoked? 8. Did defendant 1 requisition the property in dispute treating plaintiff as the owner of the property in dispute? If so, to what effect? 9. What is the effect of the defendant 3 and his family being governed by the rule of primogeniture on the present suit? 10. If it is proved that the father of defendant 3 was not the owner of the property in dispute, and further if it is proved that defendant 3 has inherited the estate of his father, then is defendant 3 not liable to re-compensate the plaintiff for the amount in dispute? 11. Cannot the suit for the compensation be maintainable? 12. To what compensation is the plaintiff entitled to and from whom? 13. To what amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled towards the price of the property in dispute, and from whom? 14. Is the suit within time with respect to compensation? (Objected to ). 15. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The property in question was purchased by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in his own individual name and capacity and not in his capacity as a sovereign ruler of the Kapurthala State.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs are declared to be the owners of the immovable property known as 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi and are entitled to exercise all rights of ownership in respect of the same and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the said immovable property. A decree for permanent injunction is also issued restraining defendant 1 from paying to defendant 2 any compensation for the requisition of the said immovable property or in connection with the same. It is further declared that on the order of requisition of property No. 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi coming to an end, it is the plaintiffs who would be entitled to get the physical possession thereof. The plaintiffs are also awarded costs of the suit. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any other relief.
( 1 ) THE main question which arises in this suit, filed nearly 29 years ago, is as to whether the immovable property known as 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi belonging to late Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, the erstwhile ruler of Kapurthala State, as his personal property at the time when the said Kapurthala State, along with other States, acceded to and merged in the Union of India in the year 1948.
( 2 ) THIS suit was filed by Shri Radhesham Makhanlal Seksaria for a declaration that he was the sole and absolute owner of the aforesaid immovable property and was entitled to exercise all rights of ownership in respect thereof. Union of India has been impleaded as defendant 1 while State of Punjab has been impleaded as defendant 2 and Sukhjit Singh, grandson of late Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, is the third defendant.
( 3 ) THE facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:
(A) By Indenture of Lease dt. 13th July, 1921 a plot of land measuring 3. 04 acres situated at 3, Man Singh Road, New Delhi was granted on perpetual lease by the Secretary of State for India to one Khan Bahadur Abdul Hamid. Pursuant thereto a house was constructed on the said land. (b) On 19th Jan. 1935, by a duly registered conveyance, the aforesaid Khan Bahadur Abdul Hamid sold and conveyed the said immovable property to Maharaja Jagatjit Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000. 00. At that time the State of Kapurthala was independent and had not merged in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (hereinafter referred to as pepsu ). (c) It is alleged that on 1st March, 1937 Lt. Col. C. P. Fisher, the then Prime Minister of Kapurthala State, prepared an aide Memoire which purported to set out as to what were the private and personal properties of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh and what were the State properties. In the said aide Memoire the property, 3 Mansingh Road, New Delhi, as well as certain other immovable properties in Mussoorie were mentioned and treated as State properties. According to the plaintiff, such treatement of the properties was erroneous as the same were in fact private and personal properties of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh. It is further alleged that Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, in exercise of his sovereign powers as a Sovereign Ruler of Kapurthala State, issued a Command dt. 1st Jan. 1940 under the signature of Tika Raja, President State Council, which was in the following terms: "his Highness Maharaja is pleased to command that in future all the houses in Mussoorie and Kapurthala House, New Delhi will be considered as his personal and private properties and "aide Memoire" dt. 1st March, 1937 shall be inoperative and ineffectual so far as the above properties are concerned. " (d) Maharaja Jagatjit Singh died in or about 1949 and as per his last will and testament all his properties were bequeathed to his eldest son Paramjit Singh, father of defendant 3. Paramjit Singh, being the eldest son of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, now became the Maharaja of Kapurthala. It is further alleged that by a registered Indenture of Convenyance dt. 10th Jan. 1950 Maharaja Paramjit Singh sold and conveyed the said immovable property to the plaintiff and to one Dewan Germandas for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. In the said deed, it was recited that Maharaja Paramjit Singh was in possession of the said immovable property as the absolute and sole owner thereof. The conveyance also contained a clause to the effect that the vendor agreed to indemnify the vendee against any losses, damages etc. which may be incurred, inter alia, for the reason that the vendees are deprived of the whole or any part of the said property by reason of any defect found in the vendor s title. (e) Thereafter on 17th Jan. 1950 Maharaja Paramjit Singh wrote a letter to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi informing him that the aforesaid property had been sold and the Chief Commissioner was requested to effect the necessary mutation and change in the land 90 records regarding the
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
