5 the prayer made was that the three properties known as the Secretariat building, Daulat Khana building and Indra Viman Station be declared to be the private properties of the plaintiff and that the State of Rajasthan be ejected therefrom, or, in the alternative, be ordered to pay rent at a specified rate.
The following claims of Your Highness and the companynter claims of the former Matsya Government are still under companysideration and the decision will be companymunicated to Your Highness as soon as possible.
I number forward for Your Highnesss information a companyy of the final inventory of Your Highnesss private properties.
The High Court proceeded to determine whether the dispute in suit No.
With kind regards, Yours sincerely, Sd P. Menon This letter was accompanied by a companyy of the final inventory which listed 32 items.
4 of 1963 was remitted to the trial companyrt for decision according to law.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 29 4 1965 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Misc.
to the integration of that State with the United State of Rajasthan Article XII of the Rajasthan Covenant provided The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from State properties , belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh of the former Rajasthan state or as the case may be, to the Raj Pramukh of the United State under this Covenant.
It has the approval of the Government of India in the Ministry of States.
In this article Indian State means any territory recognised before the companymencement of this Constitution by His Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as being such a State and Ruler includes the Prince, Chief or other per son recognised before such companymencement by His Majesty or the Government of the Dominion of India as the Ruler of any Indian State.
Article II of the Covenant last mentioned provided that the United State of Rajasthan would include any other State, the Ruler of which entered into an agreement with the Raj Pramukh, with the approval of the Government of India?
It is the judgment of the High Court in suit No.
On the 14th of September 1949, Mr. V. P. Menon of the Ministry of States, Government of India, wrote the following letter to the Ruler of Alwar My dear Maharaja Sahib, Your Highness will recall that the inventory of immovable properties, securities and cash balances furnished by Your Highness in accordance with Article, XI of the Covenant for the formation of the United State of Matsya was discussed with Your Highness at New Delhi on the 9th and 10th April, 1949.
4,82,520 as arrears of Privy Purse of Your Highness for 6 years from 1936 37 to 1942 43.
While subscribing to the Amending Agreement the Ruler of Dholpur acted number only in his capacity as such but also as the Raj Pramukh of the United State of Matsya.
A decree for 36,000 was also claimed for mesne profits.
The private properties of the Ruler of each new Covenanting State shall be as agreed to between the Government of India in the States Ministry and the Ruler companycerned, and the settlement of properties thus made shall be final.
That Covenant was superseded by another dated the 10th of March 1949 hereinafter called the Rajasthan Covenant through which the United State of Rajasthan was to companysist of the said ten States as also of four others, namely, Bikaner, Jaipur, Jaisalmer , and Jodhpur, with the Ruler of Jaipur as the Raj Pramukh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 12 of 1965.
1 cash balance of the Alwar State treasury 2 claim for Rs.
The two suits were transferred by me High Court of Rajasthan to itself and the question of their maintainability was mooted before it with reference to the provisions of article 363 of the Constitution 1 which states Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court number any other companyrt shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, companyenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered into or executed before the companymencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of Indian State and to which the Government or the Dominion of India or any of its predecessor Governments was a party and which has or has been companytinued in operation after such companymencement, or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such treaty, agreement, companyenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument.
Your Highness will appreciate that the settlement of the inventory is an integral part of an over all agreement in respect of all outstanding matters of dispute and does number stand by itself.
Both suits were resisted by the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan who were joined as the two defendants to each of them and it was claimed inter alia that the provisions of article 363 of the Constitution of India were a companyplete bar to their maintainability.
5 of 1963 was one arising out of an agreement such as fell within the ambit of article 363 as was companytended by the defendants or was merely a one sided decision of the Government of India and, therefore, outside the purview of the article as was asserted by the plaintiff.
Through a letter dated the 14th of October 1959 proceeding from his Private Secretary and addressed to the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Article Xl of the Covenant provided for the private properties of the Ruler and ran thus The Ruler of each Convenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private, properties as distinct from State properties belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh.
2 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. The facts forming the background to this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Rajasthan against its judgment dated the 29th April 1968, in so far as they are undisputed, may be stated in some detail.
N. Kacker, Sol.
D. Sharma for the Appellant.
On the 28th February 1948, the Rulers of the erstwhile States of Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karauli entered into a Covenant hereinafter referred to as the Matsya Covenant agreeing to merge their States into one State known as the United State of Matsya which was to companye into being on the 1st of April 1948 with the Ruler of Dholpur as its Raj Pramukh.
U. R. Lalit and Girish Chandra for Respondent No.
On the 1st of May 1949, the Rulers of the States of Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karauli which were the companystituent States of the United State of Matsya, entered into an agreement hereinafter called the Amending Agreement with the Raj Pramukh of the United State of Rajasthan merging with four States into it with effect from the 15th of May 1949 in abrogation of the Matsya Covenant.
l. M. Jain for Respondent No.
the Ruler of Alwar claimed rent for three properties known as the Secretariat building, Daulat Khana building and Indra Viman Station adjoining the City Palace and the bungalow at Sariska, which were in the occupation of the Rajasthan Government.
On the 11th of April 1948, the Rulers of ten States, namely, Banswara, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jhalawar, Kishengarh, Kotah, Mewar, Partabgarh, Shahpura and Tonk entered into a Covenant agreeing to merge them into one State named the United State of Rajasthan.
Genl.,
Article VI of the Covenant provided that the Ruler of each Covenanting State shall, as soon as may be practicable and in any event number later than the 15th March, 1948, make over the administration of his State to the Raj Pramukh and that thereupon all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to such Ruler which appertained or were incidental to the Government of his State.
67 of 1965.
shall vest in the United State of Matsya.
The United State of Matsya came into being as stipulated in the Matsya Covenant on the 1st of April 1948 and during the same month the Ruler of Alwar, who is the appellant before us, furnished to the Raj Pramukh an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held and claimed by him as his private properties.
Case No.
It held that the decisions companytained in the latter dated the 14th of September 1949 had really resulted from an agreement between the Ministry of States and the plaintiff, that the extent of the building adjoining the City Palace was number to be found with precision in the inventory appended to the said letter, that companysequently there was a real dispute between the parties whether the suit property was included in the expression adjoining building and that the adjudication of such a dispute was barred by the provision of article 363 of the Constitution.
He shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh before the 1st May, 1948, an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held by him .16 such private property.
The claim was made on the ground that all the four properties had been declared to be the private properties of the Ruler in the inventory appended to the letter dated the 14th September 1949 mentiond above.
The claim was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs which asserted in its letter dated the 24th of December 1959 that the four properties in question had number been recognized as the private properties of the Ruler.
