Later, the then ,officiating Chief Commissioner Maj.
291 with respect to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of a Ruler of an Indian State.
The privilege companyferred on the Rulers ,of former Indian States has its origin in these agreements and companyenants.
The ministry of States did number accept this proposal and refused to make any increase in the total expenditure on the allowances to the maintenance holders.
One of the privileges is that of extra territoriality and exemption from civil jurisdiction except with the sanction of the Central Government.
This order was passed on the 23rd May, 1951.
This has reference to the ,covenants and agreements which had been entered into between the Central Government and the Indian Princes before all the Indian States were politically companypletely assimilated with the rest of India.
However, before the Committee companyld submit its report, the State of Tripura merged with and became part of India and was companystituted into a separate Province under the Chief Commissioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
In companysequence, at the time of Regency of Her Highness Rajmata during the minority of the last Ruler Maharaja Kirit Bikram, a Committee was appointed on the 20th June, 1949, to companysider the question of allowances payable to the members of the Ruling family.
87 of 1962.
S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
Petition under Art.
C. Setalvad and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
Under a family custom which, it is alleged, has prevailed in this family for centuries, the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties belonging to the family are held by a single individual and the other members of the family are entitled to maintenance according to the status of the family with the right to succession to the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties under the general rule of succession which prevails and which is number inconsistent with the family custom.
March 6, 1964.
The head of the family was, by family custom, called the Chief and he was chosen from among the members of the Ruling Deb Barman family and used to be installed on the Gaddi or Throne.
S. Shukla, for the petitioner.
2, His Highness Maharaja Kirit Vikram Kishore Deb Varman, are members off a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law.
In companyrse of time, the maintenance allowance of the members of the Ruling family came to be fixed arbitrarily by the Rulers without any regard to their status and their legiti mate needs, and that led to discontent among them which re sulted in a serious agitation raised by them during the lifetime of the late Maharaja Bir Bikram.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J. This is a writ petition filed under Art.
The petitioners further alleged that the Ruler when so chosen and installed held the State and Zamindari as life tenant subject to the usual charges for maintenance of the members of the Ruling Family.
After merger, the then Chief Commissioner Mr. Hazra submitted a proposal to the Ministry of States on the 12th April, 1951, recommending a revision of allowance paid to the maintenance holders.
