HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH versus HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI SAROJINI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 17-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH 
A 
v. 
HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI SARO.TIN! DEVI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: Hindu Succession Act 1956. Section 5(ii):-
Succession to estate a/Indian Ruler-Held, mle of primogeniture ap-
plicabl&-Said mle applies not only to the Rulership (Gaddi), but also other C 
property-Only exception is property held by a Ruler in capacity other than 
Sovereign-Person claiming such exception will have to plead and establish 
the same. 
Hindu Law-lmpartibility of Estat&-Rule of Primogenitur&-To be 
established by custom-In the case of the Sovereign Ruler, these are presumed D 
to exist-Held, mle of primogeniture continued even after 1947-48--Under 
Article 372, the Law of Succession relating to primogeniture continues until 
it is repealed--Constitution of India-Article 372. 
Covenant dated May 15, 1948, entered into between Central Govem-
ment and the State of Nabha-Held, makes a clear distinction between private E 
properties and State properties. 
Benami sales-Principles reiterated and applied. 
Code of Civil Procedur&-Section 11--Res judicatct-Not armlicable 
where the facts and the law applicable are totally different. 
F 
The controversy in the present appeals relates to two properties in 
Simla and Delhi respectively, which were purchased by R.S. the erstwhile 
Ruler of the Princely State of Nabha. In view of the restriction imposed by 
the British upon purchase by Princes of property outside their own States, 
the properties were purchased benami in the name of others. Relinquish- G 
ment deeds were subseqnently executed by the ostensible owners in the case 
. of the Simla' property, in favour of the three sons and widow of the late 
RS. and in the case of the Delhi property, in favour of Nabha State. Upon 
the death of R.S. in 1942, his elder son P.S. became the Ruler by the rule 
of primogeniture. Disputes arose between P.S. on the one hand and the H 
607 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A other heirs of R.S. on the other, with P.S. claiming the properties as his 
private, exclusive properties on the basis of the rule of primogeniture, and 
the other heirs contending that the properties were in fact the personal 
properties of R.S. to which the rul• of primogeniture did not apply and 
therefore, they had a share in the same. 
B 
A suit for partition and in the alternative for joint possession filed· 
by the other heirs in respect of the' Simla property ultimately led to a 
judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Conrt 
holding that the suit was liable to be dismissed because it was not estab-
lished that the said property was purchased benami from .ont of the 
C personal funds of R.S. or that it was on that account his personal property. 
The other heirs appealed to the Supreme Court byway of Civil Appeal No. 
1208 of 1990. 
A suit for possession filed by P.S. in respect of the Delhi property 
ultimately led to a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court 
D holding that the said suit was liable to fail because the property was the 
personal property of R.S. and not of Nabha State and, therefore, upon his 
death it devolved upon PS, his brothers and also the wjdow of PS under 
the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937. P.S. appealed to the 
Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 5857 of 1983. In Civil Appeal 
E No. 1208 of 1990 filed by the other heirs, the Court framed the following 
points for determination: 
(1) What is the Rule of Succession applicable to the State ofNabha? 
(2) Did the Simla property belong to the State of Nabha or was it 
F the private property of R.S.? 
G 
(3) Whether the Judgment of the Allahabad High Conrt holding that 
the rule of primogeniture applied only to succession to the Gaddi and not 
succession to private properties as distinct from State properties would 
constitute res judicata. 
Dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 1990, and answering the points 
as follows, this Court 
HELD : 1. Though impartibility and primogeniture in relation to 
Zamindari esl1!tes are to be established by custom, in the case of a 
H sovereign ruler, they are presumed to exist. The rule of primogeniture 
· 
MAHARATA PRAT AP SINGH v. MAHARANI SAROJINI DEVI 
609 
applies not only to the Rulership (Gaddi) but also to other property. The A 
distinction between public and private property is not correct, since it runs 
counter to the basis attributes of sovereignity. Being an absolute monar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.