On the merger of the State of Jaipur with India, the properties of the Jaipur State were divided into two categories, namely, State properties and private properties.
properties or at least substantially less than a half share.
1 will have only l/6th share in the said .
Respondent No.2 is his widow.
The appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Maharaja Man Singh.
Apart from this, what is more significant, is that admittedly respondent No.
On June 24, 1970, respondent No.
1, as the eldest son of Maharaja Man Singh, was recognised by the Government for the purposes of the companyenant as the successor to Maharaja Man Singh.
Respondent No.5 is the son of respondent No.
Respondent No.7 is the daughter of the pre deceased daughter of Maharaja Man Singh.
One of the companytroversies in the suit is whether the properties recognised as the private properties of Maharaja Man Singh were his personal properties or properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family of Maharaja Man Singh.
6 is the minor son of the appellant.
On February 6, 1949, Maharaja Man Singh, for and on behalf of Jaipur State, entered into a companyenant with the Government of India and the State of Jaipur acceded to India by an Instrument of Accession.
3 and respondent No.
H. Kania, C.J. Leave granted.
1 has sold off over six thousand shares of Jaipur Taj Enterprises Ltd. and admittedly at least over two thousand of these shares were included in the said schedules to the plaint.
Counsel heard.
By an order dated April 29, 1986 made by the Delhi High Court, respondent No.
It is number possible to determine these companytroversies here.
This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated March 20, 1991 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO OS No.55/90 whereby the order of a learned Single Judge rejecting the application made by the appellant for appointment of a Receiver was companyfirmed.
