RAJKUMAR NARSINGH PRATAP SINGH DEO versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 11-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
MarcA 11 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
RAJKUMAR NARSINGH PRATAP SINGH DEO 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.) 
Khorposh Allowance-Sanad granted by Ruler of State-
Discontinuance of cash allowance by Government of Orissa after 
merger-Validitv-Sanad, if law or executive act-Constitution 
of India), Arts. 366(10), 372--0rder 31 of 1948 issued by Govern-
ment of Orissa, cl. 4{b ). 
The Ruler of Dhenkanal State granted a sanad by way. of 
Khorposh allowance to his younger brother, the appellant giving 
certain lands and a maintenance allowance, under the customary 
law of the State. After the merger of that State to the Dominion 
of India which became effective on January 1, 1948, the Govern-
ment of Orissa took over the administration of the State and 
discontinued the cash allowance. The appellant challenged the 
validity of the order of discontinuance by a suit in the Court of 
Subordinate Judge. The suit was dismissed. On appeal to this 
Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the sanad 
issued by an absolute monarch was law, and was continued by 
Arts. 366(10), 372(1) of the Constitution and cl. 4(b) of the Order 
31 of 1948 issued by the Orissa Government in exercise of the 
power delegated to it by the Central Government under s. 3(2) 
of the Extra Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947. 
Held: (i) It was not correct to say that in dealing with a 
grant m,ade by an absolute monarch any enquiry as to whether 
the grant was the result of an executive or legislative act was 
altogether irrelevant. This Court did not lay down any inflexi-
ble rule that the weli"I1eCClgnised jurisprudential distinction 
between legislative and executive acts was wholly irrelevant 
or inapplicable to such a case. 
Ameer-un Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 
352, Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad .v. 
Akram Ali, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 60, Madhaorao Phalke v. State of 
Madhya Bharat, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 957, Promode Chandra Deb v. 
State of Orissa, [1962] Supp_ 1 S.C.R. 405, Tilkauat Shri Govind-
lalii Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, [1964] 1 S.c:R. 561, Maharaja 
Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AI.R. 1963 S.C. 953 
and State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Nithibarwala. 
[1964] 6 S.C.R 461, considered. 
In such an enquiry it was necessary to consider such rele-
vant factors as the nature of the order, its scope and effect, 
general setting and context and tire method adopted by the 
Ruler in promulgating it. 
So judged, the Sanad in question had no legislative element 
in any of its provisions and· was a gift pure and simple made in 
pursuanoe of the custom of the family and customai;r law of the 
State. 
· 
The gift therefore, was an executive act of the Ruler and 
did not amount to law although the Ruler was discharging ~ 
it his obligation under personal or customary law. 
.. 
7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
113 
The gift being an executive act of the Ruler could be modifi-
1961 
ed or cancelled by an executive act of the successor to the Ruler. R .k 
--;;-
. 1 
Th d. 
t' 
f t" 
h 
11 
ld 
t 
ff t th 
aJ ·umar .. arsmg' 
e 
iscon inuance o 
ue cas 
a o'\\o·ance cou 
no a ec 
e Pratap Singh Deo 
continuance of the customary law under cl. 4(b) of the Order of 
v. 
1948 and Art. 372 of the Constitution. Nor could the plea of pay-State of or;"" and 
ment of such allowance even after the merger invalidate the 
Another 
discontinuance. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 133/ 
1963. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Novem-
ber 17, 1960, of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal 
No. 45 of 1955. 
M. C. Setalvad, R. K. Garg, M. K. Ra111a11111rthi, D. P. 
Singh and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General of lndia, Gana-
pathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 
March 9, 1964. The judgment of the Court was delivered 
by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.-The principal point of iaw Gajendragad!w, C.J;. 
which arises in this appeal is whether the Sanad iSsued in 
favour of the appellant, Rajkumar Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo, 
by his elder brother, the Ruler of Dhenkanal State, on March 
1, 1931, is existing law within the meaning of Art. .372 of the 
Constitution read with cl. 4(b) of Order No. 31 of 1948 issued 
by the respondent State of Orissa on January 1, 1948. This 
question arises in this way. The State of Dhenkanal which was 
an independent State 

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