Supreme Court Upholds Intestate Succession in Faridkot Royal Family Dispute (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 755
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J., and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can the personal laws of succession be bypassed by a will or a claim of primogeniture? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a complex family dispute concerning the estate of the former ruler of Faridkot, Raja Harinder Singh. The court had to decide the validity of a will and the applicability of the rule of primogeniture in the succession of the ruler’s private properties. The bench comprised Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around the properties of Raja Harinder Singh, the former ruler of Faridkot State, who had three daughters: Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Maharani Deepinder Kaur, and Rajkumari Maheepinder Kaur, and a son, Tikka Harmohinder Singh, who predeceased him. Raja Harinder Singh entered into a Covenant with the Government of India on May 5, 1948, which led to Faridkot State becoming part of the Indian Union. This covenant allowed the ruler to retain ownership of his private properties. Raja Harinder Singh executed three wills: the first on March 11, 1950, the second on May 22, 1952, and the third, which was disputed, on June 1, 1982. The first two wills dealt with specific bank accounts and flats, while the third will bequeathed all properties to the Maharwal Khewaji Trust, with his daughters as trustees. The eldest daughter, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, challenged the third will and claimed her share in the properties. The ruler’s brother, Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, also claimed the estate based on the rule of primogeniture.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case is governed by several key legal instruments:

• PEPSU Covenant: This covenant, signed by Raja Harinder Singh on May 5, 1948, integrated Faridkot State into the Indian Union. Article VI vested the administration of the state with the Union, while Article XII allowed the ruler to retain ownership of private properties. Article XIV guaranteed succession to the Gaddi (throne) according to law and custom.
• The Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948: Enacted by Raja Harinder Singh, this act declared that the estate would devolve to his male successor.
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956: This act governs succession among Hindus. Section 5(ii) states that the Act does not apply to any estate that 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 or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act.

The interplay of these laws, particularly the covenant and the Hindu Succession Act, forms the core of the legal dispute.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the various parties were as follows:

• Rajkumari Amrit Kaur:
  • Claimed a 1/3rd share in the properties left behind by her father, Raja Harinder Singh, as per the Hindu Succession Act.
  • Challenged the validity of the Third Will dated June 1, 1982, alleging it was fabricated and unenforceable.
  • Argued that the properties were not subject to the rule of primogeniture.
• Maharani Deepinder Kaur and Maharwal Khewaji Trust:
  • Contended that the Third Will was valid and that the properties should devolve to the Trust.
  • Argued against the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (through LRs):
  • Claimed that the properties should devolve to him based on the rule of primogeniture, being the brother of the Ruler and the only male heir.
  • Argued that the properties were ancestral and thus subject to the rule of primogeniture.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether The Raja of Faridkot’ Estate Act 1948 is a valid enactment and is applicable for succession to the Estate of Raja by the plaintiff (Rajkumari Amrit Kaur)?
2. Whether Law of Primogeniture is applicable in the succession of Estate of deceased Raja Harinder Singh?
3. Whether Raja Harinder Singh executed a valid Will dated 01.06.1982 and Maharwal Khewaji Trust constituted thereunder is a legally constituted Trust?
4. Whether Civil Suit No.4193 dated 21.08.2010/04.04.1992 titled ‘Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh through LR vs. Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others’ is maintainable?
5. Whether Civil Suit No.437 dated 23.07.2010/15.10.1992 titled ‘Rajkumari Amrit Kaur vs. Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others is maintainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• PEPSU Covenant: The court examined the covenant to determine the rights of the ruler regarding private properties and succession.
• Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The court considered the provision that states that the Act does not apply to estates that descend to a single heir by covenant or agreement.
• Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma [1993 Supp 1 SCC 233]: This case was cited to support the view that after the merger agreement and accession to the dominion of India, the properties were earmarked by the late Raja as his personal properties.
• Dalmiya Dadri Cement Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1958 SC 816]: This case was cited to highlight that after the merger of states, the residents do not carry with them the rights they possessed as subjects of the ex-sovereign.
• Sudhansu Shekhar Singh Deo v. The State of Orissa [AIR 1961 SC 196]: This case was referred to for the distinction between personal rights and privileges of the ruler and his personal property.
• State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252]: This case was also cited for the distinction between personal rights and privileges of the ruler and his personal property.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The PEPSU Covenant was interpreted to mean that while it guaranteed succession to the Gaddi, it did not extend such guarantee to private properties.
• Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was interpreted to mean that the act would apply as the properties did not descend to a single heir by covenant or agreement.
• The cases of Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma [1993 Supp 1 SCC 233], Dalmiya Dadri Cement Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [AIR 1958 SC 816], Sudhansu Shekhar Singh Deo v. The State of Orissa [AIR 1961 SC 196], and State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] were used to support the court’s reasoning that the rule of primogeniture ceased to exist after the merger of the state and that the personal properties of the ruler were to be governed by personal law of succession.

The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. The court held that the properties of Raja Harinder Singh would be divided according to the principles of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, as the Third Will was found to be invalid and the rule of primogeniture was deemed inapplicable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the Third Will was not genuine.
• The fact that the properties were deemed private properties of the ruler after the merger of the state.
• The inapplicability of the rule of primogeniture to private properties after the merger.
• The applicability of the Hindu Succession Act for intestate succession.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings and legal principles, with a greater emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

The court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the issues, leading to the conclusion that the properties should be divided according to the principles of intestate succession.

Key Takeaways

• The rule of primogeniture is not applicable to the private properties of former rulers after the merger of their states into the Indian Union.
• The Hindu Succession Act applies to the private properties of former rulers in the absence of a valid will or covenant specifying otherwise.
• Wills must be proven to be genuine and free from suspicious circumstances to be valid.
• The court emphasized the importance of concurrent findings by lower courts on factual matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• All reports, statements of accounts, and other documents lodged with the court were to be sent to the Trial Court.
• The Trust was allowed to run the Charitable Hospital only until September 30, 2022, after which the execution court would decide on the management and control of the properties.
• The properties in the hands of the Trust and others were to be maintained in the same form until further orders from the execution court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Omitted as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the private properties of former rulers are subject to the personal laws of succession, such as the Hindu Succession Act, and that the rule of primogeniture does not apply to such properties after the merger of states into the Indian Union. The court clarified that the covenant guaranteed succession to the Gaddi but not to private properties. This case reinforces the principle that private properties are governed by the personal law of the individual, and the burden of proof lies on the person asserting a custom that deviates from this principle.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that the properties of Raja Harinder Singh would be divided according to the principles of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act. The court rejected the applicability of the rule of primogeniture and deemed the Third Will to be invalid, thus settling a long-standing dispute within the Faridkot royal family.