Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(xiv). The 'Impartible Estate' means an Estate inheritable by a single heir and incapable of partition or sub division. It means that the estate of Raja Harinder Singh cannot be partitioned and only one can inherit the entire estate of Raja.

"The Raja of Faridkot's Estate" means all the personal and private immovable and movable properties of late Raja, wherever the same are situated and includes all additions and accretions which may from time to time made there to, by the holder of that Estate. It also includes all rights incidental and appertaining thereto. All the properties acquired by the Raja at any point of time during his lifetime and held by Raja in his name at the time of his death are part of the Raja of Faridkot's Estate and will devolve upon his successor according to Rule of succession provided in the Act. According to Section 4(3) of The Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, 1948 females are not excluded.

54 of 547 Earlier High Court of Allahabad in the aforesaid Talat Fatima Hasan's case (supra) i.e. (2002) AIR (Allahabad) 119, held that primogeniture will be applicable to the Estate of Ex.Ruler of Rampur and personal law will not be applicable. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court has been over ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforecited case. Para No.12 of the said judgment is to the following effect:-

"12. The only issue to be decided is whether the properties held by Nawab Raza Ali Khan would devolve on his eldest son by applying the rule of primogeniture or would be governed by Muslim Personal Law (Sheriat) Application Act, 1937 and devolve on all his legal heirs."

[xxiii]. In the aforecited case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the custom of primogeniture is not applicable to the estate of former ruler of Rampur since there is valid enacted law and is in force i.e. Muslim Personal Law (Sheriat) Application Act, 1937 and the properties will devolve according to that law and not by custom of primogeniture. Personal law shall prevail in the matter of succession to personal/private properties of Ex.Ruler of Rampur. On the basis of aforesaid, it can be appreciated that there is a valid enacted law i.e. The Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, 1948, which is also protected in terms of Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and the properties of Raja shall devolve as per provisions of the Act.

(xiii) In Yuvraj Prithvisinhji vs. Brijraj Kumari Sahiba of Kutch, 2010 SCC Online Gujarat 7447 the issue was whether the family custom of inheritance of Raja and incidentally of all properties devolving on a single member of the family to the exclusion of other members of the family is ancient, settled, consistently followed without being challenged from time immemorial as alleged in the written statement by the defendants. The trial Court came to the conclusion that a rule of primogeniture was a custom in Kutch. As per family custom and succession or inheritance, it was on the demise of the ruler, his 71 of 547 eldest son succeeded to the Gaddi i.e. defendant No.1. All the properties were in his possession and enjoyment and whatever property devolved in the succeeding person i.e. defendant No.1 was not subject to any liability for maintenance of any members of the royal family and this family custom of inheritance was observed as a matter of right since the time immemorial. It continued to be followed and observed without violation by the royal family. It was also held by the trial Court that primogeniture existed. The Court while noticing the fact that on 05.04.1948, the original defendant No.1 entered a Kutch merger agreement with dominion Government and applicability of Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and non-applicability of judgments under Income Tax Act held that the property remained impartible even after Hindu Succession Act and after the 26th Amendment in 1971. The rule of primogeniture continued even after 1947-48. Under Article 372, the law of succession relating to primogeniture continues until it is repealed. The judgment of the trial Court was upheld.