VISHNU PARTAP SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 12-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' • 
>· 
VISHNU PARTAP SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
JANUARY 12, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN, KULDIP SINGH AND 
M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Article 363 and Covenant of Rufer of States 
in Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand-Whether Ruler of Chhatarpur had 
set aside the demised property as private property? 
A 
B 
The question is whether the property in dispute was the private C 
property owned by the Ruler or State property? On August 25, i948 the 
then Maharaja of erstwhile Chhatarpur State made a gift of the house 
in dispute in favour of his father-in-law J)ewan Shankar Partap Singh, 
now deceased and represented by his legal representative appellant. 
this gift became the subject-matter of dispute in the suit filed by the D 
State of Madhya Pradesh in i962. The Trial Court's clear findings were 
that the property in dispute was not that of the Maharaja as it had been 
gifted away by him to the defendant and was mistakenly shown later as 
'State Property'. The High Conrt allowed the appeal of the State of 
Madhya Pradesh on the view taken by It that the property in dispute 
had vested in the llnited State of Vindhya Pradesh on May l; i948 and 
E 
thereafter no valid gift could be made by the Ruler in favour of the 
defendant; and whatever rights and power the Ruler had as a sovereign 
ceased to exist after May i, 1948 and the gift made thereafter could not 
give the defendant a valid title to the property. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The Ruler of Chhatarpur l.ost none of his sovereignty by 
integrating his State with other States except to the extent in which it 
was arranged or re-distributed on some of its aspects. lt is in exercise of 
F 
that sovereign power that the Ruler, bad set apart the property iri 
dispute as one of his private properties in the list submitted on July 5, 
G 
1948. [52F] 
the High Court committed an error that the Ruler had lost his 
sovereign right to earmark the property in dispute as liis private .prop-
erty after May i, 1948 or that the said property vested in the State with 
effect from that date or that the letter f<:xhibit P-9 of Shri N .M. Buch 
H 
43 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 1 S.C.R. 
A and the lists attached thereto had the effect of divesting the appellants of 
the title to the property in dispute in favour of the State with effect from 
that date. l53EJ 
B 
c 
D 
Virendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1955) I SCR 
415, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
509(N) of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1973 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 118 of 1966. 
A.K. Ganguli and C.N. Sreekumar for the Appellant. 
R.B. Misra and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.M. PCNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave is against a 
judgment and decree in reversal passed by a Division Bench of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 
C>ne has straightaway to come to grips with some basic facts of 
F the case alongside the historic backdrop influencing their course. The 
property in dispute is a medium-sized house bearing No. 4941 l, Partap 
Sagar Ward, known as Guiab Rai Wala House, in the city of 
Chhatarpur. In the plaint filed by the District Collector, Chattarpur, 
dated May 5, 1962, it was valued at Rs.40,000 and its rental value 
barely as Rs.114.77 NP. In British days, the State of Chattarpur, like 
F other such States, was an independent State, under the paramountcy 
of the British Crown. The British Crown was the suzerain power as 
acknowledged by the Indian States which owed a modified allegiance 
to it, but none to the Government of India. On India having obtained 
independence the suzerainty of the British Crown over the Indian 
Stat.es lapsed simultaneously because of section 7 of the Indian lnde-
G pendency Act, 1947. It is a matter of history that immediately there-
after all but three of the Indian States acceded to the Dominion by 
executing Instrument of Accession. Chattarpur was one such State. 
The new Dominion oflndia was empowered to accept such like acces-
sions by a suitable amendment in the Government of India Act, 1935. 
The. sovereignty of the acceding States was expressly· recognised and 
H 
safeguarded. The identical Instrument of Accession, which each Ruler 
--
J; 
1 
"):, 
V.P. SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. [PUNCHHI, J.] 
45 
signed, was in the exercise of his sovereignty in and over his State and 
elause ·8 provided: 

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