Tikka Shatrujit Singh v. Sukjit Singh

Background & Facts

The dispute is between two arms of the erstwhile royal family of Kapurthala. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, the eldest male lineal descendant of Maharaja Paramjit Singh, was recognized as the ruler of Kapurthala by the Government of India. His estranged wife Gita Devi (now deceased) and their children (Shatrujit Singh, Amanjit Singh (deceased), Priti Devi, Gayatri Devi) claimed that certain properties were ancestral coparcenary properties liable to partition under Hindu Law. The Brigadier claimed absolute ownership under the rule of primogeniture. The Kapurthala State merged into PEPSU on 20 August 1948. Maharaja Jagatjit Singh declared certain properties as his private properties under the covenant (Mussoorie Declaration of 11 August 1948 and Declaration of 11 April 1949). The Brigadier filed Suit No. 35 of 1977 for declaration of ownership over Villa at Kapurthala and Chateau in Mussoorie. Gita Devi filed Suit No. 1052 of 1977 for partition. The Single Judge ruled in favour of the Brigadier. The Division Bench affirmed. The present appeal was filed by the children of Gita Devi (except Gayatri Devi who supported the appellants).

Statutes Involved

• Section 5(ii), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Provides that the Act shall not apply to any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India
• Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Provides for devolution of interest in coparcenary property
• Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Provides general rules of succession in the case of males
• Section 15, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Provides general rules of succession in the case of females
• Article 366(22), Constitution of India — Defines 'Ruler' for the purposes of the Constitution
• Article 362, Constitution of India (repealed by 26th Amendment, 1971) — Provided for rights and privileges of rulers of Indian States
• Section 48, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides that the Court may take judicial notice of the law of primogeniture as a custom among princely states
• Covenant of Merger dated 05.05.1948 — Agreement between rulers of eight princely states (including Kapurthala) for formation of PEPSU; Articles VI, VIII, XI, XII, XIV
• Mussoorie Declaration dated 11.08.1948 — Declaration by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh declaring properties of Mussoorie Estate as his private and personal properties
• Declaration dated 11.04.1949 — Further declaration by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh declaring additional properties (Jagatjit Palace, Elysee, Villa Bouna Vista, etc.) as his private properties

Full Analysis

Cases Distinguished

• Trijugi Narain v. Sankoo 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1604 — Distinguished and held to be not binding as it was a Division Bench decision that sought to distinguish the three-Judge Bench decision in Talat Fatima Hasan on the ground of Muslim Personal Law; the ratio of the three-Judge Bench decisions (Talat Fatima Hasan and Maharani Deepinder Kaur) prevails.

Cases Cited

• Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (2020) 15 SCC 655 — Three-Judge Bench held that succession to private properties declared by the Nawab of Rampur under the covenant is governed by personal law (Muslim Personal Law), not by the rule of primogeniture.
• Maharani Deepinder Kaur v. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (2022) 9 SCC 658 — Three-Judge Bench upheld the High Court's finding that the rule of primogeniture applies only to succession to the Gaddi, not to private properties declared under the covenant.
• Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. His Highness Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma 1993 Supp (1) SCC 233 — Travancore case; held that properties declared as private under the covenant acquire the status of personal properties and are no longer State properties.
• H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85 — Princes' Privy Purses case; observed that the rule of male lineal primogeniture was generally accepted among Hindu rulers.
• Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi 1994 Supp (1) SCC 734 — Held that impartibility and the rule of primogeniture in the case of a sovereign ruler must be presumed to exist.
• Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613 — Held that Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act protects estates descending to a single heir under a covenant.
• Visweshwar Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 SCR 1020 — Constitution Bench held that private properties declared under the covenant are not immune from acquisition; Article 362 does not prohibit acquisition.
• Sudhansu Shekhar Singh Deo v. State of Orissa (1961) 1 SCR 779 — Constitution Bench held that the privilege guaranteed under the covenant is a personal privilege and does not extend to personal properties.
• D.S. Meramwala Bhayawala v. Bai Shri Amarba Jethsurbhai (1968) 9 GLR 609 — Held that when the rule of primogeniture is applicable, the principles of ancestral coparcenary property would not apply.

Courtroom Arguments