New Delhi : In a landmark ruling that finally closes the chapter on one of the longest-running succession disputes in Indian legal history, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the properties of the erstwhile kingdom of Kapurthala will devolve among all family members in accordance with Hindu Law and not solely upon the male heir apparent under the archaic rule of Primogeniture.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice SVN Bhatti passed the decision after the matter had remained in active litigation across multiple courts for nearly five decades, according to a release.
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings dated September 3, 2004 and November 19, 2010, passed by the High Court of Delhi, which had held the custom of Primogeniture to be applicable to the properties of the erstwhile Ruler.
The dispute concerns the properties of the Kapurthala royal family comprising valuable immovable estates and movables across India and overseas that were held by the erstwhile Maharaja of Kapurthala. A Suit for partition was filed in the year 1977 by the eldest son, mother and daughters against their father seeking Partition of the family properties.
The father, having succeeded to the Gaddi pursuant to the death of Maharaja Paramjit Singh in the year 1955, objected to the partition, stating that the properties of the Rulers of Kapurthala have always devolved in accordance with the custom of Primogeniture as an Impartible Estate and the heir apparent holds such properties absolutely.
The Supreme Court held that all members of the family are entitled to rights in the property and that the mode of devolution will be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the signing of the agreement of merger and the notification of certain properties as the personal private properties of the Maharaja, only the perceived throne devolved according to the rule of primogeniture, but not the personal properties of the ruler.
Following the lapse of the British paramountcy and the signing of the agreement of merger, the Maharaja assumed the status of the ruler only for the namesake to succeed to the Gaddi, the release noted.
The Personal Properties declared by the Ruler at the time of signing of the agreement of merger, would devolve upon the successors in accordance with the Hindu Succession Law and not by the Rule of Primogeniture. The Appeal was therefore allowed in Part and the High Court’s Order, which relied upon the rule of Primogeniture in favour of the father, was set aside.
Senior Advocate Nikhil Nayyar and Raj Shekhar Rao appeared for the Appellants and Respondent No.2 (Eldest Son and Daughters), instructed by Capital Law Chambers LLP led by Ujjal Banerjee, Partner and Advocate on Record Anmol Sehgal, Senior Associate Shrikant Ramteke, Deeptam Bhadauria, Nikhil R.T, Associates and Advocates-Divyanshu Rai, Taruna, Aashna Chawla and Rajarshi Roy, the release said.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Santosh Paul and Arun Mohan appeared for the Contesting Respondent No.1 (Father), instructed by Parekh & Co led by Sameer Parekh and DP Mohanty, Swati Bhardwaj.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.deccanchronicle.com ’
