The rule of primogeniture applied to the succession of the ancestral impartible estate of Maharaja Umaid Singh, and Maharaja Hanuwant Singh became the absolute owner of all the properties left by Maharaja Umaid Singh, including the ancestral impartible estate and any private properties that may have existed.

Headnote:
SUCCESSION - RULERS OF FORMER INDIAN STATES - PRIVATE PROPERTIES - RULE OF PRIMOGENITURE - APPLICABILITY - IMPARTIBLE ESTATE - INCIDENTS - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - RIGHTS OF MEMBERS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES - SETTLEMENT - AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORMER RULER AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - EFFECT - SUCCESSION TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES - GOVERNING LAW - MAINTENANCE GRANTS TO JUNIOR MEMBERS OF FAMILY - NATURE - SALE OF PROPERTY BY JUNIOR MEMBER - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE RIGHTS AGAINST NEW STATE - OWNERSHIP OF HOUSE PURCHASED BY FORMER RULER - DETERMINATION - EVIDENCE REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, claiming to be the legal heirs of Maharaja Umaid Singh, the former Ruler of Jodhpur, filed a suit for partition and possession of ancestral joint Hindu family properties, including those listed as private properties of Maharaja Hanuwant Singh, the successor to the 'Gaddi' of Jodhpur. The defendants, including Maharaja Hanuwant Singh and his sons, contended that succession to the Jodhpur State and its properties was governed by the rule of primogeniture and that Maharaja Hanuwant Singh became the absolute owner of all the properties left by Maharaja Umaid Singh. The plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver and a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of the joint Hindu family properties.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the rule of primogeniture applied to the succession of the ancestral impartible estate of Maharaja Umaid Singh and that Maharaja Hanuwant Singh became the absolute owner of the estate upon his father's death. The court further held that the distinction between State properties and private properties was made only after the merger of Jodhpur with India and the preparation of the list of private properties, and that there was no evidence to suggest that Maharaja Umaid Singh had kept any distinction between the two during his lifetime. The court also held that the maintenance grants given to the plaintiffs by Maharaja Hanuwant Singh were not part of the ancestral joint Hindu family properties and that the plaintiffs had no right to claim a share in them. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and upheld the lower court's order refusing to appoint a receiver or grant a temporary injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the rule of primogeniture applied to the succession of the ancestral impartible estate of Maharaja Umaid Singh? 2. Whether Maharaja Hanuwant Singh became the absolute owner of all the properties left by Maharaja Umaid Singh? 3. Whether there was any distinction between State properties and private properties during the lifetime of Maharaja Umaid Singh? 4. Whether the maintenance grants given to the plaintiffs by Maharaja Hanuwant Singh were part of the ancestral joint Hindu family properties? 5. Whether the plaintiffs had a right to claim a share in the private properties listed as belonging to Maharaja Hanuwant Singh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rule of primogeniture applied to the succession of the ancestral impartible estate of Maharaja Umaid Singh, as evidenced by the custom of the Rathore clan of Rajputs, the rulers of Jodhpur, and the recognition of the rule by the British Crown and the Government of India. 2. Maharaja Hanuwant Singh became the absolute owner of all the properties left by Maharaja Umaid Singh, including the ancestral impartible estate and any private properties that may have existed, as a result of the rule of primogeniture and the merger of Jodhpur with India. 3. There was no evidence to suggest that Maharaja Umaid Singh had kept any distinction between State properties and private properties during his lifetime, and the distinction was only made after the merger of Jodhpur with India and the preparation of the list of private properties. 4. The maintenance grants given to the plaintiffs by Maharaja Hanuwant Singh were not part of the ancestral joint Hindu family properties, as they were given as a form of maintenance or family custom and not as a share in the ancestral property. 5. The plaintiffs had no right to claim a share in the private properties listed as belonging to Maharaja Hanuwant Singh, as they were not legal heirs of Maharaja Hanuwant Singh and had no interest in his private properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and upheld the lower court's order refusing to appoint a receiver or grant a temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT

1. - These three appeals, arise out of a common order passed by the learned by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated February 6, 1982 by which he dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff appellant as by defendants Nos. 3,5 and 6 before him, for appointment of a receiver under order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. and in the alternative for issuing a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. As all these three appeals arise out of the same suit and pertain to the same matter, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The undisputed facts are that Maharaja Umaid Singh of Jodhpur died on June 18, 1947 and his eldest son, Hanuwant Singh succeeded him to the 'gaddi' as the Ruler of the former State of Jodhpur, while his other sons, Himmat Singh, plaintiff Devi Singh and Dalip Singh defendants were given maintenance grants by Maharaja Hanuwantsingh. On May 16, 1948 Maharaja Hanuwantsingh executed a covenant and later a merger agreement to merge the State of Jodhpur into the larger State of Rajasthan. On March 24. 1949 the Government of India prepared a list of moveable and immoveable properties which were agreed to be kept as properties of the Ex-Ruler, Shri Han want Singh On the formation of the new State of Rajasthan on March 30, 1949 the State Government took possession of all properties belonging to the State, while the personal properties were then left under the control and ownership of the Ex-Ruler. Shri Hanuwant Singh died on January 26, 1952 leaving his minor son, Shri Gajsingh. The case of Shri Himmatsingh as averred in the plat this that Shri Umaid Singh upon his death left considerable joint Hindu family properties, as he was covered by the Mitakshra School of Hindu law, and the said properties remained in the hands of late Maharaja Hanuwant Singh and since his death they are under the control of Shri Gaj Singh. The plaintiff claimed his share in the ancestral joint Hindu family properties. By means of a separate application the plaintiff prayed that until the decision of the suit a Receiver be appointed in respect of the entire ancestral movable and immoveable properties and in the alternative, a temporary injunction be issued prohibiting the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 9 to 13 from disposing of any of the joint Hindu family properties during the suit. The learned District Judge issued an expert ad interim injunction against the defendants nos. 1,2 and 9 to 13 restraining them from disposing of joint Hindu family properties till further orders. Similar applications for obtaining temporary ad interim injunctions were also moved by defendant No 3 Devi Singh and by defendant No. 5 Yaswant singh and defendant No 6 Rajendra Singh, sons of plaintiff Himmat Singh. After hearing both the parties all the aforesaid applications for temporary injunction and for appointment of a receiver were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the ad interim injunction order issued by him on August 26, 1981 was vacated by the order dated February 6, 1982. How ever, the learned District Judge, Jodhpur imposed two conditions upon the defendants nos. 1,2 and 9 to 13 namely, that they should keep and maintain proper and correct accounts regarding the properties mentioned in Schedule J annexed to the plaint and that they should file a balance sheet of their affairs within 3 months after the close of each financial year and they should also submit within 15 days of the close of each calander year a statement regarding the disposal of any moveable or immoveable properties made during that year.

3. In these appeals, which were advanced by the learned Counsel were almost the same as were advanced before the learned District Judge. The contention of the appellants was that the parties were Hindus and wear governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and that the properties included in the list of private properties were properties belonging to the joint Hindu family of which the parties were Co-parce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Raj) 518

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTD.P.Gupta, J.Maharaj Devi Singh - AppellantVersusH.H. Maharaja Gaj Singh and Ors. - RespondentCivil Misc. Appeal No. 76, 77 and 78 of 1982.Decided On : 23-12-1982

Cases Referred (11)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
D.P.Gupta, J.
Maharaj Devi Singh - Appellant
Versus
H.H. Maharaja Gaj Singh and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 76, 77 and 78 of 1982.
Decided On : 23-12-1982