MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1117 · Decided: 07-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
MAHARANI DEEPINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9151-9153 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 5 – Raja Faridkot Estate Act,
1948 – Succesion to the Properties left behind by the Raja , former
ruler of Faridkot State – In 1948, the Raja entered into a Covenant
with the Govt. of India and executed Instrument of Accession, as a
result area forming part of Faridkot State became part of the Indian
Union – In 1948, “Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted by
the Raja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve to
his male successor – Succession to the properties of the Raja which
were shown to be private properties in the Covenant – Raja had
three daughters and a son, who predeceased his father without
leaving any heir – After the accession was complete, the Raja
executed the first Will in 1950, bequeathing the specified properties
to all three daughters in equal shares – In 1952, he executed second
Will in favour of his two daughters excluding his eldest daughter –
Three years later, the Ruler executed a registered settlement, however,
unlike the Second will, the Settlement did not disinherit the eldest
daughter – All three documents were executed before Hindu
Successsion Act,1956 – Ruler died in 1989 – Third Will allegedly
executed by the Ruler in the year 1982, came into picture which
declared that the entire property would be inherited by a Trust,
trustees of which would be his two daughters excluding the elder
daughter – Suit by the younger brother of the Ruler, claiming the
estate left behind by the Ruler on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture
– Eldest daughter also filed suit for declaration that the eldest
daughter was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the properties
left behind by the Ruler; and that the alleged Third Will executed by
the Ruler was invalid, void and unenforceable – Trial court held
that the Third Will was not genuine; that the claim of the younger
brother of the Ruler was not accepted however, the claim made by
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1117
1117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
eldest daughter was accepted – Appeal thereagainst were dismissed
– Matter before the High Court wherein the High Court held that
the Rule of Primogeniture had no application; that the Will executed
by the mother of the Ruler was proved beyond doubt on which
reliance was placed by the younger brother; that the succession to
the properties left behind by the Ruler would be governed by the
personal law of succession; and that the third Will was a fabricated
document –On appeal, held: In view of the specific finding rendered
by the courts below, including the High Court, no case was made
out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession
based on said Rule – As regards, the Will executed by Mother of
Ruler, once the Will was proved and found to have been validly
executed, in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of mother
of Ruler in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturally
be governed by the Will executed by the testatrix – Thus, findings
by the High Court fully justified.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos.9151-9153 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 01.06.2020 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. NOs.2006/2018
(O&M), 1418/2018 (O&M) and 2176/2018 (O&M).
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10211-10213 And 11206-11208
of 2020
Krishnan Venugopal, Gurinder Singh Gill, V. Giri, Manjit Singh
Khaira, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Vivek
Bhandari, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Varun Chandiok, Riya Seth, Priya Kaushik,
Ms. Deepanshi Ishar, Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Krishnan Agarwal, Kaushik
Mishra, Mahesh Kumar, Ms Aashna Gill, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.
D. Khanna, Vmz Chambers, Balbir Singh Sewak, Ripudaman Singh
Sidhu, Amit Krishna, Ms. Hanima Grewal, Jaswinder Singh, Gagandeep
Singh Mann, Tushar Bakshi, Yashraj Singh Deora, Arya Tripathi, Ms.
Monika Dwivedi, Rajat Mathur, Jaiveer Shergill, Himanshu Bajaj, Kaushal
Yadav, Shafik Ahmed Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms.
Yashoda Katiyar, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ateev Mathur,
Amol Sharma, Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Tushar Sahu, Vikas Kumar, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
The Order of the Court was pass

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