Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrimati Gayatriraje Puar vs Shrimati Shailajaraje Puar on 6 April, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
CIVIL REVISION No. 391 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRIMATI GAYATRIRAJE PUAR W/O LATE
SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, ANAND BHAVAN PALACE AB ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR S/O LATE SHRI
TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
197 ANAND BHAVAN PALACE, AB ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KUMARI KANIKA RAJE PUAR D/O LATE
SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, 197 ANAND BHAVAN PALACE, AB
ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
NOS.4 AND 5)
AND
1. SHRIMATI SHAILAJARAJE PUAR W/O SHRI
C.NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 496
AAVAS PHAATA ALIBAGH (MAHARASHTRA)
2. UTTARARAJE PATANKAR W/O SHRI PRATAP
SINGH PATANKAR D/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA
RAO JI PUAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 5,
AMOL HOSPITAL, SGM COLLEGE,
VIDYANAGAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY, SAIDAPUR SATARA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-04-2023
18:38:52
2
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. DEVIKA RAJE PHALKE W/O SHRI HEMANT
PHALKE D/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA RAO JI
PUAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 570, SATYA
SAI NAGAR, SCHEME NO.114 PART 2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI MAHARAJA TUKOJIRAO PUAR,
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST,
THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SHRI MAHARAJA KRISHNA RAO JI PUAR
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST,
THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R. S. CHHABRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI AMAN
ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF, SHRI
POURUSH RANKA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, SHRI SUMIT
SAMVATSAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 AND SHRI
HITENDRA TRIPATHI, DY. G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND
7/STATE)
CIVIL REVISION No. 453 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRI MAHARAJA TUKOJI RAO PUAR
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST THR.
ITS TUSTEE GAYATRI RAJE PUAR W/O LATE
SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 31
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-04-2023
18:38:52
3
YEARS, ANAND BHAWAN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHRI MAHARAJA KRISHNA RAO JI PUAR
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST
THROUGH ITS TUSTEE GAYATRI RAJE PUAR
W/O LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, ANAND BHAWAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI KUSHAGRA
JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRIMATI SHAILAJA RAJE PUAR W/O SHRI
C. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 496
AAWAS PHAATA ALIBAGH (MAHARASHTRA)
2. UTTARA RAJE PATANKAR W/O SHRI PRATAP
SINGH PATANKAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
5, AMOL HOSPITAL, SGM COLLEGE
VIDYANAGAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY SAIDANPUR SATARA
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. DEVIKA RAJE PHALKE W/O SHRI HEMANT
PHALKE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 570,
SATYA SAI NAGAR, SCHEME NO. 114 PART 2,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRIMATI GAYATRI RAJE PUAR W/O LATE
SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, ANAND BHAVAN PALACE, AB ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR S/O LATE SHRI
TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
197 ANAND BHAVAN PALACE, AB ROAD,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KUMARI KANIKA RAJE PUAR D/O LATE
SHRI TUKOJI RAO PUAR, AGED ABOUT 24
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-04-2023
18:38:52
4
YEARS, 197 ANAND BHAVAN PALACE, AB
ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
COLLECTOR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R. S. CHHABRA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI AMAN
ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF, SHRI
POURUSH RANKA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, SHRI SUMIT
SAMVATSAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3, SHRI VIJAY
KUMAR ASSUDANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4, 5 AND 6
AND SHRI HITENDRA TRIPATHI, DY. G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.7
AND 8/STATE .)
..................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 09.02.2023
Pronounced on : 06.04.2023
...........................................................................................................
These revisions having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1] This order shall also govern the disposal of C.R. No.453 of 2021 as both the cases have arisen out of the same civil suit No.101A of 2021.
2] In Civil Revision No.391 of 2021 as also in Civil Revision No.453/2021, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the order dated 22.10.2021, passed in regular civil suit No.101A of 2021 by III Additional District Judge, Dewas by which the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 5 petitioners/defendants' applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, raising common grounds, have been dismissed.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit on 11.08.2021 for declaration, permanent injunction, mesne profit, possession and partition of ancestral and self acquired properties of Late Shrimant Maharaj Shri Krishnaji Rao Puar. The suit was filed on the following grounds:-
"(i) That Plaintiff is the daughter of Late Shrimant Maharaj Shri Krishnaji Rao ji puar who was last king of the dewas senior state and allegedly expired intestate on 21/01/1999.
(ii) That the son of Late Shri Krishnaji Rao Ji Puar, Late Shri Tukojiraje Puar, also left for his heavenly abode on 19/06/2015.
(iii) That respondent nos. 4 and 5 trust were created by late Shrimant Maharaj Shri Krishnaji Rao Ji Puar who formulated 3 trust and various properties were transferred to said trust without any legal or apparent necessity.
(iv) In 2016 when it came to knowledge of plaintiff that Pune property has been illegally mutated in the name of Shri Tukoji Rao Puar then Plaintiff initiated legal proceedings at Pune.
(v) It is further averred that in January 2018, plaintiffs were denied access to the suit properties for the first time.
(vi) It is also averred in the plaint that on 05/07/2018, Petitioner No.1 filed an application of probate qua will dated 06.06.1988 of Late Shrimant Maharaj Shri Krishnaji Rao Ji Puar."
4] In the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the following grounds:-
"(i) That as the relief claimed is against the properties of public trust also, therefore, without issuance of notice to registrar of public trust under section 80 of CPC and without joining him as a party, the present suit is not maintainable and deserves summarily dismissal.
(ii) The second objection as to maintainability of the suit was with regard to limitation and the contention of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 6 petitioners was that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation even as per plaint averments as plaintiff/respondent No.1 is claiming her share in properties left behind by Late Shrimant Maharaja Shri Krishnaji Rao Ji Puar who expired in 1999 and even after disputes case as regards Pune property was filed in the year 2016, immediately upon death of late Shri TukojiRao Puar in 2015.
(iii) Third objection was with regard to territorial jurisdiction as the suit was filed qua properties situated at Dewas, Indore, Pune, Jaipur, Alot, Supa and the cause of action qua properties was also different.
(iv) The fourth objection was based upon judgements of supreme Court to the effect that plaintiff has filed the frivolous and vexatious suit disclosing no clear right to sue.
(v) The fifth objection was that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to the suit in hand since the suit properties as per plaint averments were belonging to rulers of erstwhile princely state Dewas consequently as per provisions of section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act the suit was barred.
(vi) Sixth objection was raised as regarding non compliance of mandatory provisions of CPC including order 6 rule 15, order 7 rule 3, order 4 rule 1(3) and order 6 rule 2 CPC.
(vii) It was also stated that the description of suit property is not sufficient to identify the property and therefore the suit deserves to be dismissed in terms of section 29 of the Contract Act read with order 7 rule 3 CPC."
5] The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court vide the impugned order. 6] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court, vide its order dated 16.12.2022, has already decided I.A. No.1160 of 2022 which is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for appropriate orders in respect of the document filed by the petitioners on 10.11.2021, by document No.4158 of 2021 without affidavit, which has been filed for the first time in this Court only, and this Court has held that the rule of primogeniture can be proved by way of evidence only and it is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 7 directed that the said document can be filed in the trial Court by the parties.
7] In respect of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the rejection thereof by the impugned order, Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in the present case, as no notice under Section 80 of CPC was issued to the Registrar of Public Trust and without joining him as a party, the suit itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Judge of the trial Court on Section 80 (4), as amended in the State of M.P., of CPC is misplaced as the said provisions are only attracted in the case of suit referred to in order 1 Rule 3B of CPC and thus, on this ground only the petition deserves to be allowed. 8] It is also submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit should not be dismissed on technical grounds is erroneous inasmuch as Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC itself provides dismissal of suit on technical grounds.
9] Counsel have also submitted that, admittedly, the cause of action has not arisen at Dewas as even according to the plaintiff, the cause of action first arose in the month of January, 2018 when the plaintiff was denied access to the ancestral and self acquired properties of her father, despite the fact that one of the properties are situated in Pune, and it is also submitted that the cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff on 29.06.2019, i.e., from the date of dispatch of legal notice for partition of properties, and on 28.01.2021, and 31.05.2021 when a negotiation for partition failed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 8 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. It is submitted that regarding the Pune property, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2016, whereas other proceedings were initiated in respect of Alot and Pune properties in the year 2018. Thus, it is submitted that the suit at Dewas in respect of the properties at Indore, Pune, Alot district Ratlam. Jaipur and Ahamadnagar is not maintainable. 10] Counsel have submitted that the suit itself was hopelessly barred by limitation for the reason that Shri Krishna Raoji Puar quo whose properties the suit was filed, expired in the year 1999, and his son Tukoji Rao Puar, the husband of the petitioner No.1 expired in the year 2015, and even according to the plaintiff she instituted proceedings at Pune in the year 2016, whereas the present suit was filed in the year 2021, which was filed after 21 years of accrual of cause of action and after 5 years of alleged knowledge. 11] Counsel have also submitted that this is not a case where the plea of suit being barred by limitation can be rejected on the ground that the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts as in the present case, even on a bare perusal of the averments of the plaint, it is apparently clear that the suit is barred by limitation. 12] Counsel have also submitted that the learned Judge of the trial Court also erred in not appreciating the fact that there is an admission in the plaint that late Shri Krishna Raoji Puar was the last ruler of Dewas state and thus the provisions of Section 5(ii) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were attracted and the provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable in the present case as has Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 9 already been held by the Supreme Court in the case of His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi reported as (1994) Supp.1 SCC 734. 13] Shri Asudani has also submitted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 of CPC are mandatory in nature and there is no verification of the plaint. Counsel has also submitted that the provisions of Order 7 rule 3 of CPC or Section 29 of the Contract Act are mandatory in nature and the particulars of the suit property to identify the suit property by boundaries should be given or else the suit deserves to be dismissed as has also been held by this Court in the case of Laxman Singh Vs. Jagannath reported as 2000 (1) MPWN 79.
14] Counsel has also submitted that the non compliance of provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC has also been lightly brushed aside by the learned Judge of the trial Court, despite the same being mandatory in nature.
15] In support of his submission, Shri Assudani has also relied upon certain decisions in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chander Kant reported as AIR 1977 SC 148; Asharam Dixit Vs. Harinarayan and others reported as (2007) 4 MPLJ 251; Kamlesh Babu Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma reported as (2008) 12 SCC 577; Laxman Singh Vs. Hazari Singh reported as (2008) 5 SCC 444; Raghvendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasad Singh reported as (2020) 16 SCC 601; Anoop Singh Vs. Nathoosingh reported as (1972) MPLJ Short Note 106; Prahlad Kushwaha Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 10 and Another Vs. Rani Devmati and Others reported as (2012) 3 MPLJ 673; Begum Sahiba Sultan Vs. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan and others reported as (2007) 4 SCC 343; Shivnarayan Vs. Manik Lal reported as (2020) 11 SCC 629; T Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Anr. reported as (1977) 4 SCC 462; and Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj and Another reported as (2010) 8 SCC 1 16] The prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri R. S. Chhabra, Senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff and it is submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Or.7 rule 11 of CPC.
17] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18] Before proceeding with the issues raised by the petitioner on merits, it would be apt to refer to the relief clause of the plaint which reads as under:-
I. "Declaration of 1/4th share of Plaintiff in the suit property.
II. Declaration of the Will dated 06.06.1988 as null and void.
III. Declaration of the right of the plaintiff to be appointed as a Trustee of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vishwasrao Senadhu-Randhar Religious and Charitable Trust.
IV. Declaration of transfer of properties in favour of the Defendant Nos.6 and 7 Trusts as mentioned in Schedule III as null and void.
V. Decree for Partition by metes and bounds and Possession of 1/4th share in suit property.
VI. Decree for sharing 1/4th share from the Sale Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 11 Proceeds received by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 or inherited by them from Late Shri Tukojirao Puar.
VII. Decree for sharing 1/4th share in the Mesne Profit earned by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from the properties of Late Shri Krishnajirao Puar.
VIII. Permanent Injunction against the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest by any mode with regard to the suit property.
IX. Cost of the Suit be awarded to the Plaintiff." 19] In the considered opinion of this court, the relifs sought in the plaint have also to be kept in mind while dealing with the various issues raised by the petitioners.
20] So far as the objection relating to the non issuance of notice u/s.80 is concerned, even though the notice u/s.80 has not been issued, but it is also found that the suit is not only against the charitable trusts, but against the private defendants as well, against whom also separate reliefs have been sought, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit itself is not maintainable. It is also found that no action of the registrar of public trust has been challenged, but the transfer of the properties of late Krishnaji Rao Puar to such Trusts has been challenged, in such circumstances, even if the provisions of s.80(4) of CPC as amended in the State of M.P., are not applicable in the present case, still, the suit cannot be dismissed on this sole ground as the issue appears to be triable and can be decided during the trial only. 21] The petitioners second ground is regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Dewas Court to try the suit in respect of the properties which are also situated at Indore, Pune, Jaipur, Alot Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 12 District Ratlam, and Ahmad Nagar and the plaintiff has also stated the cause of action in respect of such properties in the year 2016 and 2018 also. Thus, it is submitted that when the cause of action have arisen at different times, a joint suit cannot be filed in respect of the different properties situated at different places and thus, the provisions of Section 17 of CPC cannot be invoked as the cause of action is also said to be different in respect of different properties as the plaintiff has already filed a case in respect of Pune property in the Court at Pune, Maharashtra whereas at Alot, District Ratlam (M.P.), a probate has also been filed by the defendant No.1 in respect of the Will dated 06.06.1988. It is found by this court that the learned Judge of the trial Court has recorded a finding that under Section 17 of CPC, when the properties are situated in different Districts or different places, suit can be maintained in one such place where the property or a part of the property is situated. The aforesaid finding, in the considered opinion of this Court does not call for any interference as this court is also of the considered opinion that the said objection can be decided only after the evidence is led by the parties. And so far as the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in respect of this point in the case of Begam Sahiba Sultan and Shivnarayan (supra) are distinguishable and are of no avail to the petitioners. 22] So far as the objection regarding the suit being barred by limitation is concerned, it is found that in para 25 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred that the cause of action arose in the month of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 13 January, 2018 when the plaintiff was denied access to the ancestral and self acquired property of her father Late Shri Krishnarao Ji Puar, and on 29.06.2019, from the date of dispatch of legal notice for partition of properties and on 28.01.2021, as also on 31.052021 when the negotiation for partition failed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. In para 18 of the plaint, the plaintiff has also averred that she came to know about the Will of her father dated 06.06.1988 only on 05.07.2018, in the Court proceedings before the Additional District Judge, Alot, District - Ratlam and according to her no such Will has ever been executed by her father. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be too early to come to a conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in the year 1988 when the Will was executed by the father of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff herself has averred that she came to know about such Will being executed by her father in the year 2018 onlym and in such circumstances, the said objection cannot be said to be sufficient enough to reject the suit as under the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law cannot be decided at this stage.
23] Regarding the objection in respect of the petitioners' plea that the suit is frivolous and factitious, and does not disclose a clear right to sue is concerned, learned Judge of the trial Court has held that on perusal of the plaint, it is found that the plaintiff has claimed that the Will executed on 06.06.1988 is a forged Will, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 14 which has never been mentioned by Late Shri Krishnarao Ji Puar from the date of the Will till his death and the same has come to light only on 05.07.2018, when it was discovered by the defendant No.1 only and it is held that on such averments having made, the suit cannot be said to be frivolous or fictitious in any manner. The aforesaid finding in the considered opinion of this Court does not call for any interference.
24] So far as the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 of CPC is concerned, this issue is purely a disputed question of fact and cannot be decided on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court.
25] So far as the objection regarding non-compliance of mandatory provision of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC read with Section 29 of Contract Act is concerned, learned Judge of the trial Court has held that such an objection cannot be allowed to sustain as such infirmity is only procedural and the suit is not liable to be dismissed on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The learned judge has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawati Gupta and others Vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and others reported as (2006) 2 SCC 777 on 3rd of February, 2006. The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court also does not call for any interference as the same appears just and proper.
26] Similarly, objection regarding non-compliance of provisions Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 15 of Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC also cannot render the plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The other objection raised by the petitioners regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC is concerned, the learned Judge of the trial Court has held that such infirmity would not render the suit liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which finding in the considered opinion of this Court again does not call for any interference.
27] So far as the objection regarding applicability of Section 5
(ii) of Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') is concerned, the learned Judge of the trial Court has held that this issue can only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present suit, the provisions of Act of 1956 would not be applicable and the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any of the properties of the eldest son of the ruler. So far as Section 5 of the Act of 1956 is concerned, the same reads as under:-
"Section 5 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
5. Act not to apply to certain properties.--This Act shall not apply to--(i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by reason of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954;
(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act;
(iii) the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund administered by the Palace Administration Board by reason of the powers conferred by Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated 29th June, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52 16
(emphasis supplied) 28] A perusal of the aforesaid Section clearly reveals that it is for the party, who is claiming his right under Clause (ii) of Section 5 of the Act of 1956, to establish his rights by leading proper evidence and in such circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court to reject the aforesaid plea of the petitioners also.
29] The judgements relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable on facts and are of no avail to them. 30] Thus, it is held that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference in the impugned order and the petitions deserve and are hereby dismissed.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 06-04-2023 18:38:52