DR. KARAN SINGH versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 13-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. ,. 
DR. KARAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR: 
APRIL 13, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 363-Disputes arising out of treaties, agreements, covenants etc.-
Bar to interference-By Courts-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Ex-Ruler C 
entered into an agreement before commencement of Constitution-The said 
ex-Ruler, in a correspondence to the Union of India, had given a list of his 
private properties which did not include certain "articles" and was accepted 
by the latter-Ex-Ruler's son filed a writ petition claiming the said "articles" 
as private properties of the Ruler family-Held: The said correspondence D 
would amount to an "agreement" within the meaning of Art. 363-Hence, 
maintainability of the writ petition would depend upon the conclusion whether 
the said "articles" were covered by the said agreement or not. 
Articles 136 and 142-Relief-Moulding of-Disputed questions of fact-
Ex-Ruler 's son made a representation claiming certain "articles" as private E 
properties of the Ruler family-The said representation was rejected by the 
Central Government-Writ petition filed by the said Ex-Ruler's son-
Maintainability of-Held: Disputed questions of fact, incapable of being 
adjudicated upon without evidence, could not be adjudicated upon in writ 
petition-Since there was no illegality in rejecting the representation no order F 
directing reconsideration of the matter by Government could be passed-Also 
no grounds existed whereby relief could be moulded under Art. 142. 
Evide1:ce Act, 1872 : 
Sections 17 and 31-Admission-Statements made in Books; 
Autobiography etc.-Whether amount to admission, waiver or abandonment 
of right-Held: Such statement could not be taken into consideration as 
conclusive admissions but could be taken as additional circumstances along 
with other circumstances for determining whether the conduct of the maker 
amounted to waiver and/or abandonment of right. 
43 
G 
H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Arbitration Act, 1940 : 
Section 2(a) - "Arbitration agreement "-Absence of-Issues-Reference 
to arbitration-Held: No issue could be referred to arbitration in the absence 
of an agreement to this effect. 
B 
Practice and Procedure : 
Estoppel, Abandonment and Waiver-Principles-Applicability of-Ex-
Ruler 's son filed a writ petition claiming certain "articles" as private properties 
of the Ruler family but failed to take timely action-Division Bench held that 
the son had waived and/or abandoned his right. in respect of the articles-
C Correctness of-Held: Although the son had/ailed to assert his right at proper 
opportunity yet the doctrine of estoppe/ might not be applicable-But the 
decision of the Division Bench could not faulted with. 
D 
The appellant was the son of ex-Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The 
ex-Ruler on 26-10-1947 executed an instrument of accession of Jammu and 
Kashmir. The articles in question comprising of jewellery and gold articles 
etc. were transferred from Toshakhana at Jammu to Toshakhana at 
Srinagar on 17-9-1951. The ex-Ruler died on 26-4-1961. During his 
lifetime, the ex-Ruler did not claim the articles in question as private 
property. The Government of India, in pursuance of Article 366(22) of 
E the Constitution of India, recognized the appellant as a successor to the 
ex-Ruler w.e.f. 26-4-1961. By Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 
1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f. 28-12-1971. The abolition, however, 
did not affect the ownership of the rulers of their private property as 
distinct from State property. 
F 
The appellant made a representation dated 2-12-1983 to the Ministry 
of Home Affairs claiming that the articles lying in the Toshakhana, 
Srinagar, were his personal properties. 
In February 1984, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to the Union of India, 
G Ministry of Home Affairs to decide and adjudicate upon the representatfon 
dated 2-12-1983. Du ring the pen~ency of the writ petition, the 
representation of the appellant was rejected by .the Union of India on 24-
9-1984. In its communication dated 24-9-1984 sent to the appellant, the 
. Union of India, inter alia, noticed that in response to Government's letter 
H dated 18-5-1949, the ex-Ruler in his letter dated 1-6-1949 addressed to the 
. 
io-
. / 
KARAN SINGH v. ST ATE 
45 
then Minister of Home Affairs had sent a list of h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.