LexDRAUPADI DEVI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DRAUPADI DEVI AND ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRJKRJSHNA, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 363-Act of State-Dispute related to character of suit property flowing from pre-constitution covenant-Bar to interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements, etc.-Held, dispute C beyond jurisdiction of Court. Article 372-Commands of 1940and1948 allegedly issued by Maharaja of Kapurthala-Even if assumed to be proved-Not saved as pre-constitution laws. I Article 77-Authentication of instruments made and executed in the name of President-Not applicable to pre-constitution instruments. D Covenant Dated 05.05.1948-Executed by Rulers by which erstwhile States merged into Union of States-Articles VJ and XJI.:_Provisions of- E Discussed Property: Instrument of Accession, White Paper on Indian States, aide memoire Dated 01.03.1937 prepared by Lt. Col. Fisher-Title to property-Suit F property whether private property or State property-Effect of historical developments-Test of user of property-Non-recognition by Government of India of suit property as private property-No documentary evidence to prove title-Held, suit property is State property. Limitation Act, 1908-Section 3-Schedule-Artic/e 120-Absence of G pleading as to when cause of action arose-Ascertainment of time of cause of action on appreciation of evidence-·Time limit for filing sJtit-Six years- Suit filed after nine years-Held, Court was mandated to dismiss suit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VII, Rule 1 (e)-Requirement of H 223 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A plaiilt-fact constituting the cause of action and when it arose. B The issue that arose for consideration in these appeals was whether the suit property was the private property of the Ruler of Kapurthala State recognised as such by the Government of India or whether it was the State property of Kapurthala State. · Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : t.i. The correspondence by Maharaja of Kapurthala with the Government of India does not indicate that he was raising a dispute C with regard to the immovable properties outside Kapurthala State. On the contrary, it suggests that the Maharaja having agreed to the decision taken in the meeting with Government of India's representatives, was attempting to prevail upon Government of India to declare some of the properties as his personal properties. By signing aide memoire as early as 01.03.1937, the Maharaja of Kapurthala accepted that suit property D was State property. (234-E, F; 237-H; 238-A) 1.2. The Maharaja never made an assertion of rightful title to suit property, his efforts being directed towards wresting greater concession. The Division Bench rightly analysed the evidence on record and came E to the finding that till 1934, ~he incomes from Oudh estates and Kapurthala State were treated as one consolidated account. It was on the advice of Lt. Col. Fisher that the accounts were separately maintained after 1936. The High Court was justified in its finding that the Maharaja of Kapurthala had clearly admitted that the income from Oudh estate formed an integral part of State of Kapurthala and all along maintained F in his correspondence with the Government of India that the nature of the suit property could not be decided merely from the source of income aspect. (238-D, E; 239-C) 2.1. To merge or not to merge with Dominion oflndia was a political decision taken by the sovereign Ruler and the instrument of accession G dated 16.08.1947 and covenant dated 05.05.1948 were, without doubt, acts of State. Article XII ensured certain rights to the Ruler with regard to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of his making.over the administration of the State to the Raj Pr~mukh. Clause (3) of Article H XII provides that a dispute arising as to whether any item was the ' DRAUPADI DEVI v. U.0.1. 225 private property of the Ruler or State property was referable to a A nominee of Government of India and such nominee's decision would be final and binding on all the parties concerned, provided that such dispute was to be referred by the deadline of 31.12.1948. If the Ruler of the covenanting State claimed property to be his private property, and the Government of India did not agree, it was open to the Ru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.