Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Maharaj Kumar Mahendra Singh & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 1325/2020 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 420/2020 Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 1535/2020 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 547/2020
Decided On : 28-06-2022
Rule of Primogeniture - Partition of Estate - Order XLI, Rule 5 - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - [Section 5(ii) of Hindu Succession Act 1956, Rule of Primogeniture, Custom of Impartibility, Absolute Ownership, Partition Rights, Alienation Rights, Probate, Stay Application]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming partition of the estate of the Ex-Ruler of Mewar against the defendants, alleging mismanagement and alienation of HUF properties by the defendant No. 1. The trial court partly allowed the suit, determining 1/4th share of each party in the suit properties and allowing access to documents regarding the properties. The trial court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of the value of his share in the properties. The defendant appealed against the judgment and filed stay applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the main controversy regarding the nature of the defendant's rights over the property could not be decided at the stay application stage. The court acknowledged the substantial grounds raised by the appellant in the appeals and granted a stay on the execution of the judgment and decree until the final decision of the appeals. The court also imposed conditions on the appellant to obey certain directions issued by the District Judge until the appeals are decided.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the defendant's rights over the property, the applicability of Section 5(ii) of Hindu Succession Act 1956, and the requirement for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the will after the issuance of probate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the controversy raised by both parties required consideration and decision in accordance with the law, and the appellant had prima facie set out a case to stay the execution of the judgment and decree. The court also emphasized the purpose of interim stay to preserve the properties in question until the case is decided.
Final Decision: The court allowed the stay applications and stayed the effect, operation, and execution of the judgment and decree until the final decision of the appeals. The appellant was bound to obey certain directions issued by the District Judge until the appeals are decided.
JUDGMENT
1. The present three stay applications have been filed under Order XLI, Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by appellant - Arvind Singh Mewar along with three appeals directed against impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2020 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 14/2011 (Old No. 63/1983) titled as "Maharaj Kumar Mahendra Singh v. LR's of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh & Ors." and the same are being decided by the common order.
Brief essential facts, for the purpose of deciding the stay applications, are as under :-
On 22.04.1983, plaintiff - Kumar Mahendra Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a civil suit claiming partition of the estate of Ex-Ruler of Mewar against defendants i.e. Maharaja Shri Bhagwat Singhji Mewar (father), Maharani Smt. Sushila Kumari (mother), Rajmata Virad Kunwar (grand-mother) and Arvind Singh Mewar (brother), respectively. As per averments made in the plaint, after independence of India, His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhupal Singh, Ex-Ruler of erstwhile Mewar State signed the instrument of accession with the Government of India on 15.04.1948. As per covenant entered into, he was made entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the properties as distinct from State properties, belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh. After death of His Highness Maharana Shri Bhupal Singh on 04.07.1955, defendant No. 1 - Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh adopted son of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhupal Singh, inherited the properties from his father. He was also recognized as Ruler of Udaipur with effect from 04.07.1955 in succession to His Highness Late Maharana Shri Bhupal Singh by gazette notification.
3. As per averments made in the plaint, defendant No. 2 was wife of defendant No. 1 and natural mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and was member of the Hindu Undivided Family (afterwards referred to as "HUF"), of which defendant No. 1 was Karta, residing at Shambhu Niwas Palace, Udaipur. Defendant No. 3 was adoptive mother of defendant No. 1 and grand-mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and was also member of the HUF. Defendant No. 4 was natural born younger son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and was younger brother of plaintiff. His Late Highness Shri Bhupal Singh was the last Maharana of the Mewar State. After his death on 04.07.1955, all movable and immovable properties of His Late Highness Shri Bhupal Singh devolved upon defendant No. 1 according to Mitakshara Law and belonged to the HUF. The ancestral Joint Hindu Family Properties were shown in Annexure-A & B. Defendant No. 1 in total breach of his duty as Karta of the HUF grossly mismanaged and dissipated large portions of HUF property and also disposed of the same by sale or otherwise transferred. The plaintiff attained majority on 13.02.1959. None of the alienations were for legal necessity or for benefit of the estate or otherwise permissible under the Hindu Law. Defendant No. 1 in total breach of his fiduciary duty, not rendered accounts. He maintained exclusive control and prevented and/or refused the plaintiff's access to the relevant records. Over the years since 1955, defendant No. 1 alienated substantial properties from the list enclosed as Annexure-A & B. Defendant No. 1 had transferred various properties to two companies floated by him viz. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Private Limited and Lake Shore Hotels Private Limited. The plaintiff also mentioned in the plaint the properties parted with by defendant No. 1. As per averments, these alienations were in violation of the Mitakshara Law. Defendant No. 1 also transferred and/or sold the properties of the HUF to the Government of Rajasthan and to various outsiders, the details of which, were also given in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 also put the monies of the HUF in various trusts in total disregard of family tradition. All these trusts formed by defendant No. 1 were illegal and beyond
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's acknowledgment of the substantial grounds raised by the appellant in the appeals and the grant of a stay on the execution of the judgme....
The judgment established the principles of intestate succession and the inapplicability of the Rule of Primogeniture in determining the succession to the properties left behind by the Ruler.
Legitimacy conferred by law does not grant rights to property of others beyond the parents, reaffirming the need for inclusive consideration of all coparceners in partition cases.
Female Hindu succession – For establishing full ownership on undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of Succession Act Hindu female must not only be possessed of property but she must have ....
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
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
