TALAT FATIMA HASAN THROUGH HER CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SH. SYED MEHDI HUSAIN versus NAWAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 31-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
TALAT FATIMA HASAN THROUGH HER CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY SH. SYED MEHDI HUSAIN
v.
NAWAB SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1773 of 2002)
JULY 31, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, DEEPAK GUPTA AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 – In
1947, on the formation of India and Pakistan, the State of Rampur
merged into the Union of India – Ruler of Rampur signed the Merger
Agreement on 15.05.49 under which he was entitled to full
ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as
distinguished from State properties) belonging to him – Constitution
of India came into force on 26.01.50 – Ruler died intestate –
Certificate issued inter alia certifying the eldest son of the Ruler,
defendant no.1(since deceased) as the sole successor to his private
properties – Certificate quashed– Plaintiff-granddaughter of the
Ruler filed suit inter alia for partition of the suit properties on the
ground that the properties being his private properties, all legal
heirs were entitled to share in the property as per personal law –
Contested by the defendants on the ground that the property was
not the personal property of the Ruler but, was attached to the
‘Gaddi’ of the State of Rampur and thus, governed by law of
succession being rule of male priomogeniture i.e. senior most male
heir taking everything to the exclusion of all other heirs – Suit
dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Definition of ruler
in Cl.(22) of Art.366 itself shows that the person who is defined as
ruler is a former prince, chief or other person, who was, on or
after 26.01.50 recognised as a ruler having signed the covenant of
accession – Such person, though defined as a ‘Ruler’, had no
territory and exercised no sovereignty over any subjects – They
had no land other than the private properties – Since, they were
rulers only as a matter of courtesy, to protect their erstwhile titles,
the properties which were declared to be their personal properties
had to be treated as their personal properties and could not be
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 811
811
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
treated as properties attached to the Gaddi – A Gaddi or rulership
and private property have two different connotations even in the
merger agreement– Rulers enjoyed right to privy purses, private
properties and privileges only because of the Constitution and in
other respects they were ordinary citizens – Thus, on the death of
the Ruler in 1966, succession to his private properties was governed
by personal laws – Undisputedly, if personal law is to apply then
the 1937 Act will apply and since the Ruler was a Shia, his estate
will devolve under the Muslim personal law, as applicable to Shias
– During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended from
time to time because of the death of some of the defendants – After
the amendment, the shares of all the legal heirs were worked out in
para 9-F of the plaint – These shares have not been disputed by
any one and hence, are accepted to be correct – Parties entitled to
the property as per the shares set out in para 9-F of the plaint
which shall form part of the decree – Judgments of Single Judge
and Division Bench of the High Court, set aside – Decree passed –
No order in the Contempt Petition in view of the directions issued –
Succession –Constitution of India– Art.366(2),  363(A), 291 –
Government of India Act, 1935 – s.6.
Words & Expressions –’Gaddi’ – Meaning of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The facts are not in dispute. It is also not
disputed that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,
1937 was applicable to the State of Rampur. The issue is whether
the rulers continued to be rulers after executing the instruments
of merger.  They had agreed to merge their States with the Indian
Union because they were to be paid privy purses and would enjoy
certain privileges. They were also entitled to declare some
properties to be their private properties. In case of disputes
whether the property is private or State property, the Union could
refer the dispute for decision to a committee headed by a judicial
officer. The rulers were no longer sovereign. There was no
paramountcy vested in the rulers. They had no land other than
the private properties. They had no subjects. They were rulers
only in name, left only with the recognition of their original title,
a privy purse, some privileges, etc. The rulers were rulers only

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