Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

54. Thus, in the above background, an issue was raised in the suit as to whether the legal heirs of the Nawab were entitled to share in the properties the Nawab had declared as his private and personal property. The suit was ultimately carried to this Court. The central point of discussion was whether the private properties held by Nawab Raza Ali Khan would devolve upon his  eldest son under the rule of primogeniture, or be governed by his personal law and devolve upon all his legal heirs.

70. The Court further again placing reliance upon Pratap Singh (supra) observed that any doubt or debate on whether the custom of impartibility and the rule of primogeniture continued post-covenant and merger is no longer res integra, in view of the three Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo vs. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo13 and Section 5 (ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, wherein it has been provided that an estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered shall not be governed by Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, effectively (1981) 4 SCC 613  exempting it from the Hindu Succession Act. This Court, in the aforesaid decision of Trijugi Narain (supra) concluded that the succession to the erstwhile sovereign property now held as private property would devolve vide the merger agreement and the Constitution according to the customs applicable to the erstwhile rulers. Furthermore, it held that the recent decision dated 31st July 2019 of the Supreme Court in Talat Fatima Hasan (supra), which pertains to Muslim Personal Law, would not be applicable, as the issue therein was whether the properties held by the Nawab would devolve upon his eldest son by applying the rule of primogeniture or would be governed by the Muslim Personal Law.

However, the aforesaid provision was not in force at the relevant time when the properties in question devolved upon Maharaja Paramjit Singh in 1949. At that point, the succession opened under the ordinary law in force. Therefore, the consequent devolvement of the personal private properties of the Maharaja would also be viewed through the lens of the personal law applicable to the parties at that time.

79. In Trijugi Narain (supra), this Court relied upon Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo (supra), which only observed that Section 5 (ii) of the Hindu Succession Act protects an estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant and that the Hindu Succession Act would not be applicable to such estates. However, interestingly, in the case at hand, the estate/the private properties declared by the ruler devolved upon the single heir, Maharaja Paramjit Singh, on 19.06.1949 immediately after the merger agreement. At that time, the Hindu Succession Act was not in force. The said Act was enforced with effect from 17.06.1956, and by that time, the properties had already acquired the status of private property of the then ruler,  Maharaja Paramjit Singh, in his capacity as an ordinary citizen, due to the signing of the merger agreement. Accordingly, the Hindu Succession Act or Section 5(ii) of the Act, which exempts estates descending to a single heir under a covenant, is not applicable here. The said properties/estate did not constitute the ruler's estate, as the merger covenant guaranteed such custom only for the Gaddi (throne), not for private property. As the private properties of an ordinary citizen, they were required to devolve according to the ordinary personal law then in force, namely, the Hindu Mitakshara Law.

90. Insofar as jewellery lying in Sociétés Générale, Bouleward Haussmann, Paris, France and the shares in joint stock companies lying in the safe custody with the First National City Bank, Fort, Bombay, they are not the properties that have been declared to be the private personal properties of the ruler.

Therefore, these properties would not devolve upon the family members under Hindu Law.

91. Thus, the immovable property at Mussoorie comprising of Kapurthala Chateau and St. Helens, Mussoorie is the only  property declared to be the private property which would devolve upon all the family members. Rest of the immovable properties are in the joint names and are liable to division between the joint holders. All other properties which are immovable in nature have not been declared to be the private properties and would not devolve upon the family members.