Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1429
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Second Museum Trust, Through Authorized Representative (O.s.d.) Thakur Narain Singh S/o Lt. Shri Thakur Mansingh and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70 Of 2020 Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 152 Of 2023, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 159 Of 2023, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 160 Of 2023.
Decided On : 17-04-2025
For the Petitioners:Mr. Bharat Vyas, Senior Advocate, AAG assisted by Mr. Jai Vardhan Joshi & Mr. Mukesh Joshi.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate assisted by Mr. Anant Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
Civil suits concerning rights under historical covenants executed before the Constitution's commencement are barred by Article 363 of the Constitution, preventing judicial intervention.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 363 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Dismissal of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in civil suits concerning properties governed by a covenant executed prior to the Constitution's commencement - The court ruled that such suits are barred by Article 363, which prohibits judicial intervention in disputes arising from treaties or covenants made before the Constitution came into force. (Paras 28, 50)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The court emphasized that civil suits concerning rights under historical covenants cannot be maintained in light of Article 363, which bars jurisdiction over such matters. (Paras 25, 36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed civil suits for possession and mesne profits of properties governed by a covenant executed in 1949, claiming rights as successors of the erstwhile ruler of Jaipur. The defendants contended that the suits were barred by Article 363 of the Constitution. (Paras 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suits were not maintainable as they were barred by Article 363, which prevents courts from adjudicating disputes arising from covenants executed before the Constitution. (Paras 50)
Issues: The main issues included whether the civil suits were maintainable given the bar under Article 363 and the interpretation of the covenant regarding property rights. (Paras 28, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the covenant's provisions and Article 363 collectively bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes arising from historical agreements, affirming that the properties in question are to be used for official purposes only. (Paras 28, 50)
Result: Civil revision petitions allowed; applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC granted, and civil suits dismissed.
Order :
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.)
1. These four civil revisions petitions were filed by petitioner(s)- defendant(s) after dismissal of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by learned Trial Court in four different suits filed by respondent(s)-plaintiff(s). Since, these revisions petitions raised a common question of law and arising out of right and obligations under the covenant executed prior to coming into force of the Constitution of India, therefore, we are deciding these four revision petitions with common order. Defects pointed out by the office in S.B. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 152/2023, 159/2023 and160/2023, are ignored and overruled.
Relevant Facts:-
2. Lead case is S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70/2020 filed aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in civil suit No. 66/2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur on 27.02.2020 whereby objections raised by petitioner were dismissed.
2.1 Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction, possession of property, permanent injunction and recovery of occupation charges on the ground that plaintiff-a registered trust, managing the property entrusted and also mentioned in covenant dated 30.03.1949 is entitled to possession of properties described in para No.4 of the plaint, given on license to defendants. The plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits @ ₹5 lac per month.
2.2 The plaintiff has also stated that the covenant was executed between Sawai Man Singh-II and Union of India and after death of Sawai Man Singh, Sawai Bhawani Singh was recognized as successor by Union of India. On 30.07.1972, Bhawani Singh has entrusted the property mentioned in para No.4 of plaint to present trust-plaintiff and since then the Trust is managing the property. The total area including building and annexures is 10692.22 square yards.
3. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 152/2023 is filed by defendant(s) aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 09.05.2023 in civil suit No. 6/2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur.
3.1 Respondent(s)-plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit on the ground that under the Covenant dated 30.03.1949, Sawai Man Singh-II has acquired the property “Rajender Hazari Guards Building (Old Police Headquarters)” and same was inherited by Sawai Bhawani Singh on death of Sawai Man Singh and after death of Sawai Bhawani Singh by present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also claimed ₹1 crore per month as mesne profit.
3.2 The plaintiffs have also stated that there was an understanding between Government of Rajasthan, Amer Development and Management Authority (ADMA) and Sawai Bhawani Singh for development of this property as Global Arts Square to use same for commercial purpose.
4. S.B. Civil Revision No.159/2023 is filed by petitioner(s)- defendant(s) aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 03.06.2023 in civil suit No. 14/2023 by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur.
4.1 The respondents-plaintiffs have filed a suit for mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit for the property known as “Jaipur Account Offices and Jaipur Treasury”. The plaintiffs have claimed ₹50 lac per month as mesne profit.
4.2 The plaintiffs have mentioned that by Covenant dated 30.03.1949 the suit property was left/given to Sawai Man Singh-II as private property and after death of Sawai Man Singh on 24.06.1970, Sawai Bhawani Singh was recognized as successor of Union of India. After death of Sawai Bhawani Singh on 16.04.2011, the property was inherited by plaintiffs.
5. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 160/2023 is filed by petitioner(s)-defendants(s) aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 20.05
