Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab, Etc. vs His Highness The Maharaja Of The ... on 12 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR16
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The defendants have come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Judge dated March 30, 1989, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till realization was decreed.
2. The facts:-
The grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent was the sovereign ruler of the erstwhile State of Kapurthala; that he owned personal property in United Provinces popularly known as Oudh Estate of the Maharaja of Kapurthala; that income of the Oudh Estate was amalgamated with the revenue of the erstwhile Kapurthala State and it was deposited in the Kapurthala State treasury; that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the saving of the income of Oudh Estate was lying in the Kapurthala State treast as State Reserve Fund in the year 1948, which was the personal property of the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent; that late His Highness Maharaja Jagatjit Singh grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent, being the sovereign ruler, had unimpeachable right to deal with the State property including the money lying in the Kapurthala State treasury; that on May 15, 1948, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (hereinafter to be referred to as the PEPSU) came into existence; that PEPSU was comprised of the States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Faridkot. Jind, Malerkotla, Nabha, Kalsia and Nalagarh and Covenant leading to the formation of PEPSU was signed by the Rulers of the aforesaid States on that date; that as per Article 6(vi) of the Covenant, the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent, handed over the administration of the Erstwhile State of Kapurthala to the Raj Parmukh of PEPSU on August 20, 1948 and till then the Ruler of the erst while Kapurthala State (the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent) had full powers to issue orders concerning his personal and State property, including cash lying in the Kapurthala State treasury and the orders issued by him were binding against the Government of PEPSU; that on May 25, 1948, the sovereign ruler had issued an order to the effect that out of the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- lying in Kapurthala State treasury as State Reserve Fund, Rs. 25,00,000/- would be transferred to his household account and the balance amount would be used for the benefit of the Kapurthala State; that the Government of PEPSU being trustee on behalf of the said soveign ruler had to comply with the order, that Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, shortly after the said order, died on July 19, 1948 and the father of the plaintiff, Maharaja Paramjit Singh, died in June/July, 1955 and during their lifetime, the amount of Rs, 25,00,000/- as ordered by the sovereign ruler was not transferred to the household account of the Maharaja and was lying in the Punjab Government treasury as trustee of the Maharaja and that the plaintiff through civil suit sought compliance of that order.
3. In the written statement on behalf of the defendants, preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable and the subject-matter was not justiciable; that Article XII(2) of the Covenant entered into by the Rulers of Faridkot, Jind, Kapurthala, Malerkotla, Nabha, Patiala, Kalsia and Nalagarh States with the Government of India for the formation of PEPSU states that if any dispute arises as to whether any item of the property is the private property of the ruler or State property, it shall be referred to the Government of India, who may nominate person or persons in consultation with the Raj Parmukh and the decision of that person shall be final and binding on all the parties concerned, provided that no such dispute shall be referrable after June 30,1949; that Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, the ex-ruler of Kapurthala State or his heirs never claimed the alleged amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- before June 30, 1949 and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff after 40 years was not maintainable and it was patently barred by time. The plaintiff is barred by his conduct from filing the suit since the order was passed on May 28, 1948 and the successor heirs of the sovereign ruler never claimed the alleged amount as their personal property for their household expenses.
4. On merits, it was alleged by the defendants in the written statement that after May 28, 1948, Maharaja Jagatjit Singh was not the sovereign ruler. It was denied that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was lying in deposit in the Kapurthala State treasury during the year 1948.
5. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 25,00,000/- OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is beyond limitation? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no right or authority to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the notice Under Section 80, CPC, has not been served on the defendant before filing the suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction? OPD
9. Relief.
6. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 25,00,000/-; issues No. 2, 6, 7 and 8 were not pressed at the trial by the counsel for the defendant-appellants; issue No. 3 was answered against the defendant-appellants and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and it was held that the suit was within limitation; issues No. 5 and 6 were answered against the defendant-appellants and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent; and, on ultimate analysis, the suit was decreed.
7. Undisputably, the Covenant leading to the formation of PEPSU was signed on May 5, 1948 and the administration of the eight covenanting States was formally taken over by His Highness, the Raj Pramukh on August 20, 1948; that Ordinance No. 1 of 2005 BK dated August 20, 1948/5-5-2005 B.K. to provide for the administration of the PEPSU was issued, Explanatory memorandum of the budget of PEPSU for the year 1949-50 (2006 BK.), Exhibit PW2/1, was published. In this Explanatory Memorandum, budget estimates for the preceding two years before the formation of PEPSU were given. Statement showing opening cash balances of the eight Covenanting States as on 5-5-2005 B.K./20-8-1948 was also given and at serial No. 6, the cash balance of the Kapurthala State is shown as under-
(i) Treasuries 1,18,500/78
(ii) Banks 3,85,367/2/4
-----------
Total: 5,03,867/3/-
-----------
In this official document, the total cash balance of the Kapurthala State as on August 20, 1948/5-5-2005 Bk is shown as Rs. 5,03,867/3/-. There is no other document on the record which shows that the sovereign ruler on the merger of the Kapurthala State had disclosed that he had personal funds lying in the State treasury. The sovereign ruler had given the civil list claiming the exclusive title to movable and immovable properties. In that list, there was no mention that he had exclusive right to the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, as alleged now, lying in the State treasury. In fact, documentary evidence does not indicate that on the date of merger, any amount much less the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was lying in the State treasury of Kapurthala. The plaintiffs sole claim is based upon a letter dated May 27, 1948 addressed by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh to Shri V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India, New Delhi. The plaintiff produced a copy thereof as Ex.PW2/A and the one produced by the defendants is Ex.D-2. It will be useful to reproduce letter Ex.D- 2 in extenso:-
"During your recent visit to Mussoorie, my son Tika Raja Paramjit Singh had a talk with you on 25th May, 1948 in connection with the question of the amalgamation of the income of my Estates in Oudh with the revenue of my State. He told you that the income of my Oudh Estates formed an integral part of the Kapurthala State revenue since the time these estates were given to my grandfather Maharaja Randhir Singh. It was only in 1935 that I agreed to separate the income of these estates from the revenue of my State on the recommendation of Colonel G.T. Fisher who was my Chief Minister in those days. This step was taken only with the idea of earmarking the income of the Oudh Estates for my Civil List. It has been my desire for some time to amalgamate once again the income of my Oudh Estates with the revenues of my States and I personally spoke to Pandit Gobind Ballabh Pant, the Premier of the United Provinces and also gave him a written note in this connection during last winter. As the Tika Raja has explained the whole matter to you I have issued orders to my CM. to take steps with regard to the proposed amalgamation.
Tika Raja also told you that a I have taken very little sum for my civil list from the revenue of the Kapurthala State for the last fourteen years and as a sum amounting to over rupees fifty lakhs has now accumulated as State Reserve Fund due to my strict economy and efficient administration and as I have very little personal money of my own I wish to take a substantial reserve for my household particularly in view of the fact that my State has now joined the Union of the East Punjab States and Patiala. I was glad to know from the Tika Raja that evidently you saw no objection in this respect. I, therefore, write to inform you that I have issued orders to my Chief Minister that a sum of rupees twenty five lakhs be transferred to my Household account out of the State Reserve Fund and the remaining sum of rupees 25 lakhs be spent exclusively on beneficient activities within my State."
8. A reading of this letter indicates that a wish was expressed that a sum of Rupees twenty-five lakhs out of the State Reserve Fund be transferred to the household account of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh and the remaining amount of Rupees twenty-five lakhs was to be spent exclusively on beneficient activities within the Kapurthala State. This letter was promptly replied by Shri V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India, New Delhi vide D.O.D. 9083 - 48 dated 2nd/4th June, 1948 (Ex.D-3) and the same reads thus:-
"Your letter of the 27th May was handed over to me by the Tika Raja. I am at present examining the position of your Estate in the United Provinces and shall write to you again.
In my conversation with you regarding the Reserve Fund, I do not remember to have committed myself to Your Highness utilising any amount from it. In certain hard cases the States Ministry has allowed certain concessions, but for Your Highness to utilise 25 lakhs out of a balance of 50 lakhs will evoke serious public criticism and will not be acceptable to Sardar. I shall however be prepared to discuss this with you when I meet you again."
9. The reading of this letter points out that the Secretary, Ministry of States, denied that he ever committed to the author of the letter Ex.D-2 that the sum mentioned therein could be utilised as stated therein. Exhibit D-3 in fact points out that if any such withdrawal is allowed to be made, it will evoke serious public criticism. Exhibits D-2 and D- 3 have to be read together and the former cannot be read in isolation. Conjoint reading of these two letters suggests that the Secretary in the Ministry of States politely denied the claim of the Ex-ruler and declined permission to withdraw any amount out of the State Reserve Fund. The statement in letter Ex.D-2 that the income of the Oudh Estates was amalga mated with the revenue of the Kapurthala State and that out of the amalgamated income, the Ex-ruler wanted to withdraw the sum of Rupees 25 lakhs is a bald assertion unsupported by any corroborative evidence. Letter dated May 27, 1948 (Ex.D-2) addressed to Mr. V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India, cannot assume the character of an order. At best, it can be a request and not a firman. The reading of the letter Exhibit D-2 does not indicate what has been attributed to it and the trial Judge was in error in concluding that the request contained in the letter Ex.D-2 was in fact an order for withdrawal of Rupees 25 lakhs from the State Reserve Fund and diverting the same to the household account of the ex-ruler. Moreover, the evidence brought on record nullifies the claim of the plaintiff-respondent that the letter dated May 27, 1948 (Ex. D-2) is an order having the attributes of a Shahi Firman. As observed earlier, the Covenanting States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Faridkot, Jind, Malerkotla, Nabha, Kalsia and Nalagarh agreed to the formation of PEPSU and a Covenant to this effect was signed by the Rulers. After the signing of the Covenant, Maharaja Jagatjit Singh ceased to be the sovereign ruler of the Kapurthala State. Though the Covenant was signed on May 5, 1948, yet the administration of the PEPSU was formally assumed on August 20, 1948 by the Rajpramukh of PEPSU. During the interim period, Maharaja Jagatjit Singh could not issue any Shahi Firman and, in fact, none was issued. Letter, Exhibit D-2 did not clothe him or his successor heirs to claim that out of the sum of Rupees 50 lakhs lying in the State Reserve Fund, Rupees 25 lakhs was to be transferred to the household account of the ruler. Apart from this, the ocular evidence produced by the defendant-appellants belies the plaintiff-respondent's version.
10. Shri Roshan Lal Chauhan, Treasury Officer, Kapurthala appeared as D.W.1. He stated on oath that during the year 1948, the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was not lying in the Treasury at Kapurthala. No relation of the former ruler ever laid claim to any amount as is being done now. Letter Ex.D-2 was addressed to Mr. V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, New Delhi and the proposal contained therein was rejected by him vide letter dated 2nd/4th June, 1948(Ex.D-3). The witness was not cross-examined with reference to this part of his statement. An inference is deducible that the witness' account was taken to be correct. At any rate, his evidence establishes that the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was not lying in the Treasury at Kapurthala as pleaded in para No. 5 of the plaint. A reading of the ocular evidence in conjunction with the documentary evidence in unimpeachable terms suggests that the claim of the plaintiff-respondents is patently false.
11. The defendant-appellants were not holding the money as trustees for and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Judge proceeded on the assumption that the State was the trustee and there was no limitation for recovering the amount from the trustee. Section 10 of the Limitation Act deals with suits against trustees and their representatives and the same reads thus:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration) for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property, or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of the property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof."
This section grants a total exemption from the bar of limitation in regard to the suits mentioned therein. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not to suffer by the misfeasance or non-feasance of the trustee. The conditions for the applicability of the section are as follows:-
(1) There must be property which has become vested in a person in trust for a specific purpose.
(2) The suit must be against such person or his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration).
(3) The suit must be for the purpose of following in the hands of such person the trust property or its proceeds or for an account of such property or proceeds.
The plaintiff-respondent has not come to the Court to stake claim against a person in whom the property has vested. The expression 'trust' is used in Section 10 of the Limitation Act in a technical sense and denotes an obligation which would be a trust in the strict sence of the term under the law. In the instant case, it is beyond comprehension how a trust was created with regard to the subject-matter of dispute and how it vested in the State or officers of the State. None of the conditions precedent for the applicability of this section stands established. It is beyond comprehension how the Section has been applied by the trial Judge. None of the Articles in the Limitation Act except the residuary article providing for limitation to sue when the cause of action accrues and that has to be done within three years from the date the right to sue accrued.
12. According to the plaintiff-respondent's own showing, the plaintiff-respondent's grandfather wrote a letter dated May 27, 1948 (Ex.D-2) to Mr. V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, Government of India, New Delhi, which according to him is a Shahi Firman. The claim was rejected by the Secretary in the Ministry of States vide D.O.letter dated 2nd.14th June, 1948 (copy Ex.D.3). After the rejection of his claim, Maharaja Jagatjit Singh lived for one month and died on July 19, 1948. His son Maharaja Paramjit Singh, father of the plaintiff-respondent, died in June/July, 19S5. The instant suit was filed on June 14, 1988, i.e., 40 years after the date when the claim was rejected by the Secretary in the Ministry of States. The claim is hopelessly barred by time and the trial Judge by process of reasoning, which are illogical and illegal, tried to hold that the suit was within limitation.
13. The plaintiff-respondent has no right, semblance of a right or a legal right which could be enforced in civil suit. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is wholly unjust and unsustainable at law.
14. For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeed, the judgment and decree of the trial Judge are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed with costs throughout.
15. Before I part with this judgment, I am constrained to observe that no assistance was rendered by the counsel for the State. Adjournments were granted at his request. It is unfortunate that the State has treated the matter in such a callous manner and, to say the least, the conduct deserves deprecation.