TRIJUGI NARAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS versus SANKOO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1049 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
TRIJUGI NARAIN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS
v.
SANKOO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5740-41 of 2015)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Hindu Law – Property – Merger agreement signed by
sovereign Ruler with the Dominion of India – Consequences with
regard to the nature of the property – Impartible estate or
coparcenary property – The then Maharaja of the State of Maihar
had perpetual lease rights of the property in question, leasehold
Nazul land – ‘BNS’, the ruler who succeeded to the gaddi of the
said State bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse to
his elder son of his first wife and the property in question to his
second wife for her son – Aforesaid elder son sold the property in
question to the appellant – Suits were filed for permanent injunction
claiming right in the property by adverse possession and also for
declaration & injunction against the appellant – Dismissed –
Impugned judgment reversed the findings of the courts below and
held that the property was part of the impartible estate governed
by the rule of primogeniture– Held: An estate even if inherited and
ancestral, partition of which is prohibited by custom and succession
whereto is generally by the rule of primogeniture is referred to as
an ‘impartible estate’ – As per the custom relating to impartible
estates and the rule of primogeniture, the Raja or Ruler of a
princely state would not hold the estate as the karta or coparcener,
but as the absolute owner and the estate would be impartible –
On the death of the Ruler, the succession to the rulership, and the
impartible estate, was not under the Mitakshara law of
survivorship but by the rule of primogeniture – In the present case,
inheritance of the property post the death of the then Maharaja
of the State of Maihar by the new Ruler including ‘BNS’ by
application of the rule of primogeniture indicates that it was treated
as a State or sovereign property– Property was a part of the
impartible property i.e., though ancestral was not a part of the
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1049
1049
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
coparcenary property, but was a part of the estate of the sovereign
Ruler, ‘BNS’ – Final findings of the High Court, affirmed– Hindu
Succession Act, 1956– ss. 4, 5(ii), 6, 8, 9, 14 & 30– Constitution
of India – Arts.291, 362, 363(2), 366(22) – Constitution (26th
Amendment) Act, 1971 – Evidence Act,1872 – s.48 – Doctrine of
‘cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex’ – Indian Succession Act,
1925 – Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Hindu Law – Mitakshara Hindu Law – Difference between
the Joint Hindu family and Coparcenary – Discussed.
Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate – Succession to –
Rule of primogeniture – Held: Though the right to survivorship is
not inconsistent with the custom of impartible estate, albeit it is
different from the ordinary rule of succession under the
Mitakshara Hindu law where all sons of the father are entitled to
equal share in his estate, for the law of succession when the rule
of primogeniture applies, is that the first-born son succeeds to the
entire estate to the exclusion of the other sons.
Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate and the rule of
primogeniture – Origin of – Discussed.
Hindu Law – Succession to impartible estate – Rights of
coparceners, if any – Held: An impartible estate is clothed with
the incidents of self-acquired and separate property – Such estate
even if inherited and ancestral, is not held by the coparcenary as
a part of the coparcenary property, as the coparceners or members
of the joint Hindu family do not have the right to partition or right
to restrain alienation – Thus, any property belonging to the Ruler
as a sovereign, which would devolve on succession by survivorship
by application of the rule of the primogeniture, would not bear
an incidence of a coparcenary property.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 4, 5(ii) – Continuation of
the custom of impartibility and the rule of primogeniture post the
covenants and merger – Held: s.5(ii) is an exception to s.4 and
protects application of terms of any covenant or agreement entered
into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India
or the terms of any enactment passed before commencement of the
Succession Act as per which the estate would descend to a single
heir – Further, ratio of the Constitution Bench in Vir Rajendra
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10

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