1. These three letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment made by the learned Single Judge on June 27, 1989 in writ petition No: 122 of 1984. Since these appeals arise out of the said common judgment, therefore, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. Dr.Karan, who was writ petitioner in writ petitioner No: 122 of 1984, feeling aggrieved by the judgment made by the learned Single Judge, has sought for declaration that he (appellant in LPA (W) No:60 of 1989) is full owner of the jewellery and ornaments (articles mentioned in Appendix-A and b of the appeal) and also further direction/order to restore and return all these articles, ornaments and jewellery to him . He has accordingly sought for modification of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the finding and directions of the learned Single Judge, who in his finding has directed that respondent No:2 (in LPA no: 60 of 1989) alone can pass orders to determine the disputes; and such other order and direction and writ that this High Court may deem fit to grant.

2. In LPA(w) No:39 of 1989, presented by the State of Jammu & Kashmir, aggrieved by the judgment made by the learned Single Judge on June 27,1989 in writ petition No: 122 of 1984, the appellant (State) has sought for the following prayer:-

(i) to set aside judgment and order dated June 27, 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in writ petition No:122 of 1984 and dismiss the writ petition as brought by the writ petitioner (respondent No:1 in the appeal) with costs, and

(ii) Any other relief which this honble court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs against respondent No:1.

3. In L.P.A (w) No:64 of 1989, presented by Union of India, the appellant has sought for the following prayer:-

(i) to set aside the judgment and order dated June 27,1989 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No:122 of 1984.

(ii) to dismiss the writ petition of respondent No:1 (writ petitioner) with costs; and

(iii) Any other relief which this high Court may deem just and proper in the circumstance of the case be awarded to the appellant and against respondent No:1(writ petitioner).

4. Facts of the case :

The salient facts of the case, as could be gathered from the pleadings in the writ petition and the grounds taken in the appeals for purposes of appreciating the questions of law to dispose of these three appeals are as follows: -

It is an admitted fact that by virtue of Instrument of Accession dated Oct. 26,1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir came to be acceded to the dominion of India and by a letter of Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the writ petitioner (Dr. Karan Singh) being the only son of formar Maharaja of State of Jammu & Kashmir (Shri Hari Singh) was recognised as the Ruler under Article 366 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India on July 10,1961. By another letter dated December 24,1952, addressed by the then Minister of States {Home Affairs)New Delhi Shri Hari Singh, the erstwhile Maharaja was entitled to receive privy purse annually in a sum of Rs. Ten Lakhs free from all taxes. On June 9.1949, Shri Vala Bhai Patel , the then Minister of States (Home affairs) addressed a letter to the erstwhile Maharaja Hari Singh asking the Maharaja to send a list of his private property including securities and there after the said property was accepted as private properties of His Highness, the Maharaja of J&K and the same would continue as his (Maharajas) private properties. The Government of India had also agreed occupation of Kashmir House at Bombay by the Maharaja Hari Singh free of rent for his life time. In the letter dated December 24.1952, the Government of India had also agreed to extend exemption from the provisions of the Indian Arms Act to the same extent as at present in the favour of the Maharaja and that Maharajas motor cars had to bear red number plates as at th