Supreme Court Upholds Primogeniture in Princely State Property Dispute: Trijugi Narain vs. Sankoo (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1319

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can the rule of primogeniture, which dictates that the eldest son inherits an entire estate, still apply to properties of former princely states in India? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent dispute over a property in Allahabad. The core issue revolved around whether the property should be treated as part of a joint Hindu family coparcenary or as an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture.

The bench, comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, delivered the judgment. Justice Sanjiv Khanna authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The dispute centers on a property in Allahabad, originally acquired by Bachchu Lonia through a perpetual lease in 1873. In 1896, Bachchu Lonia’s son, Ram Bharose, transferred the lease rights to Raghubir Singh, the Maharaja of Maihar State. Later, Brij Nath Singh inherited the throne of Maihar. Brij Nath Singh, via a will dated 11th February 1966, bequeathed the palace and privy purse to his elder son Govind Singh, and the rest of the properties, including the disputed property, to his second wife, Rani Tej Kumari, for her son.

Despite the will, Govind Singh, acting as the head of the joint Hindu family, sold the property to Trijugi Narain Dubey and Surendra Nath Prayagwal in 1968. Subsequently, Chandra Nath Kala and Sankoo filed a suit claiming adverse possession, later amending it to assert title based on a sale deed from Rani Tej Kumari. Chandra Nath Kala then filed a separate suit against Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath, with Sankoo as a defendant, based on the sale deed from Rani Tej Kumari. Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath contested, arguing that the property was coparcenary and that Govind Singh’s sale was valid.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed both suits, ruling that Brij Nath Singh could not bequeath the property as it belonged to the joint Hindu family. It also held that Govind Singh’s sale was valid. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the rule of primogeniture no longer applied after the Maihar State ceased to exist in 1948. The High Court reversed these findings, holding that the property was part of an impartible estate governed by primogeniture, and thus, Brij Nath Singh was entitled to bequeath it.

Legal Framework

The judgment delves into the concepts of coparcenary and impartible estates. Coparcenary is a narrower body than a joint Hindu family, consisting of those who acquire an interest in property by birth. Succession in coparcenary property is by survivorship, with restrictions on alienation. An impartible estate, on the other hand, is an estate whose partition is prohibited by custom, with succession typically governed by the rule of primogeniture, where the eldest son inherits. The court also discusses the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its impact on property inheritance.

The court also refers to Section 48 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to take judicial notice of the custom of impartible estate as applicable to princely states.

The court discusses Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states:

“This Act shall not apply to — (ii) 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 or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act;”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the property, being a leasehold Nazul plot, was not sovereign property and should be treated as coparcenary property. They contended that the rule of primogeniture should not apply in this case. They argued that the property was not part of the impartible estate of the State of Maihar.

The respondents argued that the property was part of an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture. They contended that Brij Nath Singh, as the ruler, had the right to bequeath the property through his will. They relied upon the customary law relating to impartibility of an estate and succession under the rule of primogeniture.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

✓ Whether the perpetual leasehold rights in the property were coparcenary joint Hindu family property or part of the impartible estate of the State of Maihar.

✓ Whether the customary law relating to impartibility of an estate and succession under the rule of primogeniture was applicable to the property.

✓ Whether the impartible properties of the former Ruler post the merger agreement or the enactment of the Succession Act had ceased to continue as impartible estate and were converted into coparcenary property of the joint Hindu family.

✓ Whether the perpetual leasehold rights being Nazul land were held as personal property of the Ruler and were not part of the sovereign or state properties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court relied on several authorities to reach its decision:

On the nature of impartible estates:

• Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Others [AIR 1932 PC 216]: Explained the distinction between impartible estates and coparcenary property.
• Thakore Shri Vinayasinhji (Dead) By LRs. v. Kumar Shri Natwarsinhji and Others [(1988) Supp. SCC 133]: Reiterated that impartible estates are treated as self-acquired property except for the right of survivorship.

On the custom of primogeniture:

• Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Maharaja Moheshur Singh [(1854-7) 6 MIA 164: 1 Sar PCJ 521]: Discussed the general rule of primogeniture in princely states.
• Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi and Others [(1994) Supp 1 SCC 734]: Held that primogeniture is presumed to exist in the case of a sovereign ruler.

On the nature of sovereign property:

• Advocate General of Bombay v. Amerchund [12 ER 340, 345: (1830) 1 Knapp 316,329-30]: Stated that there is no distinction between public and private property of an absolute sovereign.
• D.S. Meramwala Bhayawala v. Bai Shri Amarba Jethsurbhai [(1968) 9 GLR 609]: Explained that a sovereign ruler is the full owner of the estate.

On the effect of merger agreements and the Hindu Succession Act:

• Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased) and Others [(1993) Supp 1 SCC 233]: Held that merger agreements did not affect the nature of property or the claims of third parties.
• Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram Gajapathi Raj Manne Sultan Bahadur etc. v. Sri Pushavathi Visweswar Gajapathiraj Rajkumar of Vizianagaram and Others [AIR 1964 SC 118]: Stated that custom outlives the condition of things that gave it birth.
• Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo and Others [(1981) 4 SCC 613]: Discussed the exception under Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. The Union of India and Others [(1969) 3 SCC 150]: Clarified that recognition of rulership does not recognize any right to private property.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 48 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Allows judicial notice of customs applicable to princely states.
• Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Exempts estates that descend to a single heir by covenant or agreement from the Act.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the property was part of the impartible estate of the sovereign ruler, Brij Nath Singh, and not coparcenary property. The court held that the rule of primogeniture was applicable to the estate, and Brij Nath Singh had the right to bequeath the property through his will. The court also rejected the argument that the leasehold Nazul land was personal property, stating it was part of the sovereign property.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Others [AIR 1932 PC 216]*: The court relied on this case to understand the distinction between impartible estates and coparcenary property.

✓ Thakore Shri Vinayasinhji (Dead) By LRs. v. Kumar Shri Natwarsinhji and Others [(1988) Supp. SCC 133]*: This case was used to reiterate that impartible estates are treated as self-acquired property, except for the right of survivorship.

✓ Baboo Gunesh Dutt Singh v. Maharaja Moheshur Singh [(1854-7) 6 MIA 164: 1 Sar PCJ 521]*: The court cited this case to discuss the general rule of primogeniture in princely states.

✓ Pratap Singh v. Sarojini Devi and Others [(1994) Supp 1 SCC 734]*: This authority was used to support the presumption that primogeniture exists in the case of a sovereign ruler.

✓ Advocate General of Bombay v. Amerchund [12 ER 340, 345: (1830) 1 Knapp 316,329-30]*: The court referred to this case to affirm that there is no distinction between public and private property of an absolute sovereign.

✓ D.S. Meramwala Bhayawala v. Bai Shri Amarba Jethsurbhai [(1968) 9 GLR 609]*: This case was used to explain that a sovereign ruler is the full owner of the estate.

✓ Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased) and Others [(1993) Supp 1 SCC 233]*: The court relied on this case to hold that merger agreements did not affect the nature of property or the claims of third parties.

✓ Mirza Raja Pushpavathi Vijayaram Gajapathi Raj Manne Sultan Bahadur etc. v. Sri Pushavathi Visweswar Gajapathiraj Rajkumar of Vizianagaram and Others [AIR 1964 SC 118]*: This case was cited to support the view that custom outlives the condition of things that gave it birth.

✓ Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo and Others [(1981) 4 SCC 613]*: The court used this case to discuss the exception under Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act.

✓ Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. The Union of India and Others [(1969) 3 SCC 150]*: This authority was used to clarify that recognition of rulership does not recognize any right to private property.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the historical context of princely states and the legal principles surrounding impartible estates and primogeniture. The court emphasized that the property was part of the sovereign estate of the ruler, and the rule of primogeniture was applicable. The court also considered the merger agreements and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, but ultimately held that they did not alter the nature of the impartible estate.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing impartible estates and the rule of primogeniture, which were deeply rooted in the historical context of princely states. The factual aspects of the case, while relevant, were secondary to the legal analysis.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The rule of primogeniture continues to apply to the impartible estates of former princely state rulers, even after the merger of states into the Indian Union.
• ✓ Properties held by rulers of princely states are considered part of their sovereign estate and not coparcenary property.
• ✓ The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to estates that descend to a single heir by covenant or agreement.
• ✓ Leasehold properties held by rulers, even if outside their princely states, are considered part of their sovereign property.

This judgment reaffirms the legal position that the customs and agreements related to the succession of princely states continue to be valid. It clarifies the distinction between coparcenary property and impartible estates, providing guidance for similar disputes in the future. The decision also highlights that the personal law of succession of the Rulers is protected and the rule/custom of primogeniture applicable to impartible estates belonging to erstwhile Rulers of the princely states was not abrogated with the loss of sovereignty.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the rule of primogeniture continues to apply to the impartible estates of former princely state rulers, and that such properties are not considered coparcenary property. This judgment clarifies and reinforces the existing legal position, upholding the validity of customs and agreements related to the succession of princely states. There is no change in previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision that the disputed property was part of the impartible estate of the sovereign ruler, Brij Nath Singh, and was governed by the rule of primogeniture. This judgment reinforces the legal principles surrounding impartible estates and the succession of former princely states, providing clarity for future disputes.