STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MAHARANI USHADEVI

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 15-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R. 737 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
MAHARANI USHADEVI 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 201.2~11:i 
JULY 15, 2015 
. .j 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
~r· 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.363-Applicability of 
A 
B 
- Suit for declaration of title and permanent injpnction - By c 
the legal heir of Maharaja of Holkar - Claiming that the 
property in question which was managed by the Household 
I 
Department of the Holkar State was the exclusive and 
individual property of the Maharaja and not the property of 
the appellant-State - In the alternative seeking declaration D 
to be 'Bhumiswami' of the land uls. 158(2) of Land Revenue 
Code - Maintainability of the suit - Held: The right of the 
plaintiff flows from the Covenant whereby the Maharaja of 
Holkar and the other princely States agreed to merge with 
the dominion of India - Therefore, the relief sought by the E 
plaintiff falls within the ambit of Art. 363 and hence the suit is 
not maintainable - Since the claim of plaintiff as 'Bhumiswami' 
is by way of the Covenant which is disputed and the relief of 
settling these disputes is barred u/Art. 363, one cannot claim 
to be 'Bhumiswami', independent of the Covenant- Madhya F 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - s. 158(2). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELO: 1.1 
As per article 12(2) of the Covenant G 
(whereby the Maharaja of Holkar with othe~ princely 
States agreed to merge with the Dominion oflndia), the 
Maharaja of Holkar has furnished the details of the 
properties under different Heads. The Suit scheduled 
properties which are in possession of the plaintiff finds H 
737 
738 
SUPREMt COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A no mention in the entire list of properties, but the plaintiff 
derives his title to the property from Clause 14 of the list 
of properties which speaks about all properties under 
the control of the Household Department. The Covenant 
is the source of title for the plaintiff. By all means the 
B right of the plaintiff flows from the Covenant by virtue of 
which the plaintiff claims title over these properties, 
which according to her are declared as private properties 
of the Ruler. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be 
said that the right of the plaintiff is a pre-existing right. 
C [Paras 28 and 29] [756-C-D, F; 757-A-C] 
1.2 A bare perusal of Article 363 of the Constitution 
and the relief sought by the plaintiff in the Suit in 
unequivocal terms attracts the bar contained in Article 
D 363. Covenant is an act of State and any dispute arising 
out of its terms cannot form the subject matter in any 
Court including the Supreme Court, and there cannot 
be any implied recognition of the property as private 
property at any later stages when an opportunity had 
E already been granted to raise issue in terms of clause 3 
of Article 12 before defined period; above all, the 
properties do not find place in the Covenant. In the 
present case, interpretation of the Covenant on the part 
F of the plaintiff that all properties which are in the custody 
of the Household Department are the personal 
properties of the Ruler, an implied recognition is 
impermissible. Hence, the relief in the Suit falls within 
the ambit of Article 363 of the Constitution of India and 
G the Suit is not maintainable. [Paras 30 and 34] [757-D; 
759-E-G, H; 760-A] 
H 
Draupadi Devi and Others vs. Union of India and others 
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 223: (2004) 11 SCC 425; Madhav 
Rao Scindia vs. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 53: 1979 
(2) SCR 62; Karan Singh (Dr.) vs. State of J&K 2004 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. MAHARANI 
739 
USHADEVI 
(1) Suppl. SCR 43: (2004) 5 SCC 698- relied on. 
A 
2. As per Section 158(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code, 1959 in order to confer the rights of 
Bhumiswami, a Ruler should be holding land_ or he 
should have been entitled to hold land as such Ruler by B 
virtue of a Covenant or agreement entered into by him. 
The plaintiff/respondent cannot seek the status of 
Bhumiswami independent of the Covenant because the 
rights under Section 158(2) arise out of the Covenant 
itself. The source to hold the land arises by virtue of a C 
Covenant. When the right so claimed by way of Covenant 
is disputed and the relief of settling these disputes is 
barred under Article 363 of the Constitution, one cannot 
claim to be "Bhumiswami" under Section 158(2) of the 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, independent of D 
the Covenant. [Para 40] [762-H; 763-A-C] 
· 3. All the rights which

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