Mr. Paul, Article XII of the covenant specifically provides that the ruler shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties. Article XIV only guarantees primogeniture for succession to the Gaddi. How do you argue that primogeniture applies to private properties?

My Lord, prior to the merger, there was no distinction between public and private properties. The sovereign ruler was the absolute owner of all properties. The covenant did not create a new distinction; it merely recognised that some properties would be treated as private for the purpose of inventory. However, the character of succession remained unchanged. The Gaddi includes all properties. Succession to the Gaddi by primogeniture means succession to all properties attached to the Gaddi, whether they are called public or private. Article XIV guarantees succession according to law and custom. The custom is primogeniture. Therefore, primogeniture applies.

The three-Judge Bench in Talat Fatima Hasan and Maharani Deepinder Kaur held that primogeniture does not apply to private properties. How do you distinguish these binding precedents?

My Lord, Talat Fatima Hasan pertained to Muslim Personal Law and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. That case is distinguishable because the rule of primogeniture is not a custom under Muslim Law. The present case involves Hindu rulers. As for Maharani Deepinder Kaur, that case also pertained to a Hindu ruler, but the respondent submits that the three-Judge Bench in that case did not consider the Division Bench decision in Trijugi Narain. Trijugi Narain specifically held that primogeniture applies. The law on this point is not settled. The present case being heard by a larger Bench (two Judges) cannot overrule Trijugi Narain, which is also a two-Judge Bench decision. This Court should follow the ratio of Trijugi Narain.

The Brigadier admitted in paragraph 6 of his plaint that he is the Karta of the HUF. How can he be the absolute owner under primogeniture and also the Karta of an HUF? These are inconsistent positions.

My Lord, the admission in paragraph 6 of the plaint was made in Suit No. 35 of 1977, which pertains only to two properties — the Villa at Kapurthala and the Chateau in Mussoorie. It does not extend to all properties. Moreover, even if he is the Karta of the HUF, that does not mean the properties are coparcenary. Under the rule of primogeniture, the eldest son is the absolute owner, but he may still choose to treat certain properties as HUF properties for tax or administrative purposes. The admission is not determinative of the legal character of the properties under the covenant.

The Mussoorie Declaration uses the words 'heirs and successors' in the plural. Does that not contradict primogeniture?

My Lord, the words 'heirs and successors' are consistent with primogeniture. In a line of succession, each successor is an heir. The plural refers to the line of succession over time, not to multiple heirs at the same time. The Maharaja did not intend to share the properties among all his descendants. If he had intended that, he would have used words like 'all my descendants' or 'in equal shares'. He did not. The use of the plural does not indicate a departure from primogeniture.

For RespondentCivil Premium

Primogeniture Applies to All Properties of the Ruler — (2026) INSC 571

The rule of male lineal primogeniture is a well-established custom among princely states. Under the covenant of merger, the ruler's properties, whether public or private, are attached to the Gaddi.

Tikka Shatrujit Singh v. Sukjit Singh — (2026) INSC 571

Core Argument

The rule of male lineal primogeniture is a well-established custom among princely states. Under the covenant of merger, the ruler's properties, whether public or private, are attached to the Gaddi. Succession to the Gaddi includes succession to all properties. The Brigadier, being the eldest male lineal descendant, is the absolute owner of all properties under primogeniture.

Key Precedents

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.
Trijugi Narain v. Sankoo 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1604 — Division Bench held that succession to erstwhile sovereign property would devolve according to customs applicable to erstwhile rulers, i.e., primogeniture.
Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo (1981) 4 SCC 613 — Held that Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act exempts estates descending to a single heir under a covenant.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in