IMPORTANT POINTS
Claim of ownership over immovable properties of ex-Rulers flows from Covenants signed by them. Article 363 of the Constitution bars interpretation of covenant. Implied recognition of ownership by interpreting Covenant is impermissible.
Rights u/s 158(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 flow from the Covenant signed by ex-Ruler. Bhumiswami rights cannot be claimed if the properties are not mentioned in the Covenant.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 363 – Covenant – Article 12(3) – Plaintiff-respondent drawing her title from the Covenant – Bar under Article 363 applies – Suit properties not mentioned in the Covenant – Plaintiff trying to interpret in item no 14 of the list of properties in the Covenant to include the properties of Household department of erstwhile Holkar State as personal properties of the ruler – Such interpretation and implied recognition is impermissible – The suit, held, was not maintainable in terms of Article 363 of the Constitution. (Para 30, 31, 34)
       AIR 1971 SC 53; (2004) 11 SCC 425; (2004) 5 SCC 698 – Relied upon
       AIR 1979 SC 126 – Referred
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 363 – Covenant – Article 12(3) – Plaintiff in continuous possession of the suit land – Also regularly paying tauzi – Do not confer ownership – Plaintiff cannot interpret the Covenant to claim tenancy rights being barred by Article 363. (Para 37, 38)
       (c) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 158(2) – Bhumiswami rights – Arise from Covenant – Covenant not mentioning the schedule suit properties – Plaintiff cannot claim Bhumiswami rights u/s 158(2). (Para 40)
       Facts of the case:
       The plaintiff-respondent filed a title suit claiming title to the suit lands allegedly belonging to the erstwhile Holkar estate.
       The Trial Court ultimately dismissed the Suit.
       The High Court allowed the first appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. These appeals by special leave have been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.08.2010 and 11.02.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in First Appeal No. 421 of 2001 and in Review Petition No. 396 of 2010 respectively by which the High Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court passed in favour of the appellant/State, decreed the Suit for declaration of title in favour of the respondent and also dismissed the review petition preferred by the appellant/State.

2. The facts leading to these appeals, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff who was the daughter and reportedly sole heir of Maharaja Yashwanth Rao Holkar, the erstwhile Ruler of Holkar State filed the present Suit on 7th September 1964 seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties, i.e, Birs known as Bijasan, Ashapura, Bercha, Mohna and Gajihata and alternatively sought declaration that the plaintiff is the Government lessee or a Bhumiswami of the Suit schedule properties. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that these birs were initially under the control of the Household Department of the Holkar State. Sometime during the existence of the Holkar State, the work of cutting and collecting the grass of these four birs was made over to the Military Grass Farm of Indore with a direction that the quantity of grass required for the purpose of household has to be supplied by them.

3. During the lifetime of Maharaja Yashwanth Rao Holkar, he was depositing Tauzi assessment/revenue charges with the treasury of Holkar State. On 31-08-1945, these birs were transferred to the Army Department of the Holkar State, for harvesting grass, for a period of one year on experimental basis. Again on 22-01-1951, these birs were transferred to the Maharaja and from that date, these birs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s family till the filing of the Suit. In the year 1948, Holkar State along with the other princely States was merged with the Dominion of India as per the Covenant dated 16th June, 1948, which was later on re-organised as a part of the present State of Madhya Pradesh. As per Article XII of the Covenant entered between Maharaja Yashwanth Rao Holkar and Government of India, Ministry of States, by communication dated 7th May, 1949, the land in question being managed by the Household Department became the exclusive and individual property of the father of the plaintiff. As the property belongs to the Maharaja, even the Government demanded revenue qua the said land which was duly deposited by the plaintiff’s father as well as the plaintiff.

4. It is further case of the plaintiff that the State Government appears to have passed some orders on May 2, 1964 basing on which, the Collector, Indore had issued a notice on May 16, 1964 requiring the plaintiff to handover the possession of the land in question on the ground that the State Government has declared the Suit schedule property as the property of the State. According to the plaintiff, she holds these lands either as an owner or as a Government lessee, and Government has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Then the plaintiff moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 57 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Code to adjudicate the dispute, but the same was rejected on the ground that they had no jurisdiction. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present Suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction.

5. The appellant/defendant/State contested the Suit by filing written statement disputing the ownership of plaintiff over the Suit land. According to the defendant, Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar was never the owner of the Suit scheduled property. Hence, the question of plaintiff succeeding to the property does not arise. The birs were the property of the Forest Department of the Holkar State. On August 21, 192

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 710

SUPREME COURT OF INDIARANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – APPELLANTVERSUS MAHARANI USHADEVI – RESPONDENTCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 557-558 OF 2012Decided On : 15-07-2015

Cases Referred (4)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHARANI USHADEVI – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 557-558 OF 2012
Decided On : 15-07-2015