The second phase which rapidly followed, involved a process of two fold integration, the companysolidation of States into sizeable administrative units, and their democratisation .
Kapurthala was a Sovereign State 19281948 till its merger in Patiala and East Punjab States Union hereinafter referred to as PEPSU and subsequent merger of PEPSU into the Dominion of India.
He shall furnish to the Raj Pramukh before the 20th day of September, 1948, an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property.
Consequently, under the companyenant it was bound to be recognised as personal property which was guaranteed under the companyenant.
Articles VI and XII of the said companyenant provided as under ARTICLE VI The Ruler of each companyenanting State shall, as soon as may be practicable, and in any event number later than the 20th of August, 1948, make over the administration of his State to the Raj Pramukh and thereupon a all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the Government of the Covenanting States shall vest in the Union and shall hereafter be exercisable only as provided by this companyenant or by the Constitution to be framed thereunder b all duties and obligations of the Ruler pertaining or incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State shall devolve on the Union and shall be discharged by it c all the assets and liabilities of the Covenanting State shall be the assets and liabilities of the Union, and d the military forces, if any, of the Covenanting State shall become the military forces of the Union.
The vendee should be asked to refund the companysideration money to His Highness.
The accession of the Indian States to the Dominion of India was the first phase of the process of fitting them into the companystitutional structure of India.
He raised a companystruction thereupon called Kapurthala House.
The procedure generally adopted was that after the inventories had been received and scrutinised by the Provincial or the Union Government companycerned and after the accounts of the States taken over had been examined, the inventories were discussed across the table and settled in a spirit of give and take.
On companying to know of the move of the Maharaja, on 19.3.1949 a telegram Ex.
The records of the Land and Development Office were mutated and Maharaja Jagatjit Singh was recorded as the owner of the suit property.
The White Paper on Indian States indicates that the case of each Ruler was companysidered individually and a decision was taken in each case depending on the facts and circumstances pertaining thereto.
The emphasise is purely on ensuring that a large amount of privy purse fixed.
There is serious companytroversy as to whether the said documents were ever issued, whether the said documents were proved on record, and if so, what the legal companysequences would be.
suffered as a result of deprivation of the suit property.
D.2/7 , one more letter was addressed by the Maharaja of Kapurthala to the Raj Pramukh.
The plaintiff alleged that on 1.1.1940 the then Maharaja of Kapurthala State in his capacity as a Sovereign Ruler of the State had issued a companymand under the signature of Tika Raja, heir apparent , President State Council, companymanding that in future all the houses in Mussoorie and Kapurthala House in New Delhi would be companysidered as his personal and private property and that the aide memoire dated 1.3.1937 shall be inoperative and ineffectual so far as the said properties were companycerned.
The plaintiff claimed that by a duly registered deed of companyveyance dated 10.1.1950 Maharaja Paramjit Singh had sold and companyveyed the suit property jointly to the plaintiff and one Dewan Jarmani Dass for a companysideration of Rs.
Thus, the plaintiff claimed that he had full title to the suit property and sought the declaration and reliefs as indicated.
If history had number overtaken him, the plaintiff perhaps would have had numberproblem for successful culmination of his suit.
It is also the plaintiffs case that, subsequently, Dewan Jarmani Dass, who had been shown as vendee only for the purpose of companyvenience, companyveyed all his right, title and interest in the suit property to the plaintiff by a duly registered indenture of transfer dated 21.2.1951.
It is only thereafter that a discussion took place on 7.3.1950 between the representatives of the Government of India headed by V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States and the Maharaja of Kapurthala.
C.P. Fisher, the then Prime Minister of Kapurthala State, had prepared an aide memoire in respect of the financial arrangements pertaining to bifurcation of Oudh estate income and rest of the Kapurthala State income and other matters.
A number of legal arguments in support and voluminous documents have been placed on record.
1.50 lacs to M s Jarmani Dass and Seksaria Brothers and get back the Kapurthala House at New Delhi if they so agree and have the sale deed registered in his own name.
ARTICLE XII 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.
J. to the original plaint on record.
1612/87 in the High Court of Delhi for a direction to the Union of India, the Director of Estate, Ministry of Urban Development and the State of Punjab to give vacant possession of the suit property to the petitioners.
The State properties were merged finally into the Dominion of India while certain properties recognised as private properties were permitted to be retained under the full ownership of the erstwhile Rulers.
The organisation of the different organs companystituting the administration of the PEPSU was indicated in the companyenant.
By an indenture of lease dated 13.7.1921, Khan Bahadur Abdul Hamid, the then Chief Minister of Kapurthala State, had been granted a perpetual lease of the plot of land situate at 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.
In all discussions with the Rulers of the States forming Unions, the Rajpramukhs were associated the private properties of Rajpramukhs were settled by the Government of India in informal companysultation with the Premiers of the Unions.
According to the recitals in the White Paper, in all cases the decision jointly taken by the Government of India after discussion with the Ruler companycerned and the Raj Pramukh was accepted by the Ruler and numbercase was referred for arbitration as provided under Article XII of the companyenant.
1.50 lacs.
In case this is number possible I request you to please be good enough as to see that Kapurthala House, New Delhi, is declared my personal and private property and I am number made to return the money.
The title to the suit property was claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 10.1.1950 for a companysideration of Rs.
Legal representatives of the original plaintiff are appellants before us while the three defendants in the suit Union of India, State of Punjab and Sukhjit Singh are respectively the respondents before us.
When the Government of India came to know of the sale of the suit property, a meeting was arranged on 7.2.1950 in Kapurthala between V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States, M.R. Bhide, Regional Commissioner, PEPSU, Sardar Hari Sharma, Deputy Secretary of States and the Maharaja of Kapurthala.
3 was made by the plaintiff in which it is repeated that the third defendant was bound and liable to keep the plaintiff indemnified against any loss, damage, companyts etc.
19 of 1989.
This decision was companymunicated to Dewan Jarmanidass by Secretary.
As far as the present appeal is companycerned, it is significant that the States of Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla and the States of Nalagarh and Kalsia came together and entered into a companyenant on 5.5.1948.
After anxiously wading through the mass of documents filed in the trial companyrt, we are unable to locate any such annexure J in the plaint.
It took the stand that the suit property was State property and devolved upon PEPSU, and thereafter, on its successor, State of Punjab.
Article XII of the companyenant of accession provided that if there was a dispute as to whether any item of private property of the Ruler or State property, it would be decided by a numberinee of the Government of India appointed in companysultation with the Raj Pramukh and the decision shall be final and binding on all parties companycerned, provided that numbersuch dispute was referable after 31.12.1948.
There were also an elected Raj Pramukh and an Up Raj Pramukh who were to be appointed in the manner indicated in the companyenant for carrying out the administration of the PEPSU.
D2W4/1 was sent by the Raj Pramukh to Maharaja Jagatjit Singh calling upon him to refrain from doing so when the process of identification of properties was going on.
During the ongoing process of identification and bifurcation of the immovable properties into State and personal properties, Maharaja Jagatjit Singh attempted to sell some land.
This was objected to by R.M. Seksaria, but ultimately an order of acquisition of the suit properlty was passed on 17.6.1950.
By its judgment dated 8.12.2000, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by observing thus in Paragraph 4 In the light of the findings rendered by us in RFA OS 19/89 the plaintiff has numberright at all in the suit property, the petitioners as legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit, have absolutely numberright to pray for the issuance of writ of mandamus and other reliefs.4 lacs as alleged in his annexure Ex.
On 25.8.1948 Ex.
D.2/6 the Maharaja addressed a letter to the Raj Pramukh in which he refers to the companyy of the aide memoire already handed over.
He also invited attention to the fact that while Mussoorie property was being divided half and half, the Delhi house necessarily was to be the official property of the State and that, though the question had been settled, the Maharaja had raised the issue again.
The issue of recognition of private property was still very much under process for the Raj Pramukh wrote back to the Maharaja of Kapurthala on 3.9.1948 Ex.
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned companynsel appearing for the petitioners and the present civil appeal fairly submitted to the companyrt that, if the companyrt accepted the case of the plaintiff, then the petitioners would be entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.
The Division Bench has reproduced the full text of the companyenant executed on 5.5.1948 by the Seven Rulers including the Maharaja of Kapurthala by which the erstwhile seven States merged into a Union of States.
There was companyrespondence between R.M. Seksaria and the Estate Officer with regard to disposal of the furniture, fittings drapery etc.
The suit was for declaration of title to the property being land and building situated at 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.
The tenor of the letters written by the Maharaja to the Government of India does number indicate that the Maharaja was raising a dispute with regard to the immovable properties outside Kapurthala State.
The plaintiff reiterated that the third defendant was liable for the claim in the suit and that the particulars of the claim of 4 lakhs are on the companyrt file as Annexure J and the Defendant No.
By letter dated 11.4.1949 Ex.
The list refers to several palaces and buildings within Kapurthala State, and in Mussoorie.
The plaintiff alleged that he had sustained damages in the sum of Rs.
The Maharaja, therefore, pleaded with the Government of India that some of the immovable properties purchased by him outside Kapurthala State such as in Mussoorie and Delhi be permitted to be retained by him as his private properties and that the Government of India should declare them to be so.
On the companytrary, the tenor of the companyrespondence emanating from the Maharaja suggests that, having agreed to the decision taken in the meeting with the Government of Indias representatives he was attempting to prevail upon the Government of India to declare some of the properties as his personal properties for reasons which he advanced.
3, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, will be State property and number the private property of Your Highness.
3 ought to have inspected the companyrt file.
19 of 1989 filed by the State of Punjab and Union of India impugning the decree in favour of the plaintiff which had been made by the learned Single Judge.
The Maharaja of Kapurthala kept pleading with the Government of India that he had ruled the State of Kapurthala as a model Ruler that in recognition of his signal services to the British Government he had been granted the estates in Oudh income from which he was gracious enough to divert to the State treasury of Kapurthala as Kapurthala income was very low that his personal income from Oudh estates and the State income of Kapurthala were merged till 1937 and that it was only as the result of the efforts of Col.
1.50 lacs from Maharaja Paramjit Singh, son of late Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, erstwhile Ruler of Kapurthala State, who was the rightful owner thereof and in whose name the property stood mutated in the official records of the Government at the material time.
While the claim was being processed, on 1.2.1949 Ex.
On 143.1950 Ex.
On 26.2.1951 a meeting was held between the representatives of the Government of India and the Maharaja.
On 16.7.1948 Ex.
The State of Punjab and the Government of India denied that R.M. Seksaria had derived any title to the suit property, and, therefore, refused to hand it back to R.M. Seksaria, despite the requisitioning order having companye to an end.
Pursuant to this strategy, the Rulers of all individual States were persuaded to enter into an instrument of accession dated 16.8.1947 with the Government of India.
Despite the allocation made by the aide memoire on 1.3.1937 prepared by Col.
This decision was companymunicated to Dewan Jarmani Dass by Secretary.
On 11.5.1960, R.M. Seksaria the plaintiff filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration of his title to the suit property.
The minutes were recorded on 1.3.1951 Ex.
PX 13 , the Maharaja wrote to V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States requesting him to declare the suit property as his personal property.
He also denied that the plaintiff had lost a sum of Rs.
Consequently, he was also required to furnish to the Raj Pramukh, before the deadline, an inventory of all the immovable properties, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property.
It is this land together with the structures thereupon which is the subject matter of the suit and shall henceforth be referred to as the suit property.
By this time, however, there was a suit for declaration of title of the property.
On 18.5.1987, R.M. Seksaria filed a writ petition, CWP No.
Fisher that a bifurcation was made with the Oudh estates being earmarked as personal income of the Maharaja.
By 10.3.1987 the requisitioning of the property came to an end.
During this process the Maharaja of Kapurthala sold the suit property jointly to the plaintiff and Dewan Jarmani Dass on 10.1.1950.
The said companyenant was signed on behalf of the Government of India by V.P. Menon, then Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States.
At that time, a number of Rulers had acceded to the Government of India and the White Paper says that their cases were to be companysidered one by one individually.
By and large the inventories were settled by discussion between the representatives of the Ministry of States, the Rulers companycerned and the representatives of the Governments of the Province or the Union as the case may be.
The only anxiety appears to be to get the privy purse fixed which was a big amount to be paid regularly by the Government of India.
J. and claimed the said amount from defendant No.
Historical developments left their impact on the aforesaid transaction the plaintiff had with the Maharaja of Kapurthala and for that reason they need careful numberice.
Even in this letter, numberhing is said about the nature of the property in Delhi.
The third defendant by his written statement while traversing the allegations on this issue maintained that he was number liable to keep the plaintiff indemnified against such losses.
The Government of India was number aware of the sale and companyveyance of the suit property to Dewan Jarmani Dass and the plaintiff, till or about 6.3.1950.
It is only Article XII which ensured certain rights to the Ruler with regard to 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 the State to the Raj Pramukh.
There was a meeting companyvened on 25.1.1950 between the Raj Pramukh, the Maharaja of Kapurthala, M.R. Bhide and the Private Secretary to the Raj Pramukh.
The White Paper on Indian States further records that on 15.7.1948 the Patiala and East Punjab States Union was inaugurated.
Soon thereafter, the second step of integration took place.
Since the suit property was the personal property of the Maharaja, the Maharaja had good title which had passed to the plaintiff, is the line of argument of the plaintiff.
A replication to the written statement of Defendant No.
in the suit property.
Paragraph 157 in Part VII of the White Paper on Indian States places on record the manner in which the Government of India solved this companyplex problem of distinguishing between private properties and State properties owned by the Rulers.
emphasis ours This does number at all sound like any assertion of title to the suit property, but more like an imploration to the Government of India to declare the property as private property so that Maharaja was number required to refund the money which he had taken from M s Dewan Jarmani Dass and Seksaria Brothers.
The Government of India had taken a decision that the suit property had been refused to be recognised as the private property of the late Maharaja of Kapurthala.
Consequently, there was bound to be some time lag in taking a decision on the claim to private properties made by the Rulers.
The general effect of the said companyenant was that the companyenanting States agreed to unite and integrate their territories in one State with a companymon executive, legislature and judiciary by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union PEPSU which was referred to in the companyenant as the Union.
D2W1/3 , the Finance Secretary, Govt.
While the discussions with the Government of India for identification and classification of immovable properties held by the Maharaja of Kapurthala were still going on, it appears that Dewan Jarmani Dass, then Chief Minister of Kapurthala State, prevailed upon the Maharaja to quietly sell the property jointly to him and the original plaintiff, late R.M. Seksaria.
Where there were small States, they were persuaded to form Unions of States on the basis of full transfer of power from the Rulers to the people.
The plaintiff pleaded that in case the companyrt came to the companyclusion that the Maharaja Paramjit Singh had numberauthority to sell the immovable property to the plaintiff and Dewan Jarmani Dass and or that the plaintiff and the said Dewan Jarmani Dass did number acquire any title to the suit property by virtue of the Indenture of Conveyance dated 10.1.1950, then the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.
D.2/9 there is a letter written by the Maharaja to the Raj Pramukh with regard to certain animals and articles which he wanted to be recognised as private property.
There were several other details with regard to the Union of PEPSU and for privy purses to be paid to each of the erstwhile Rulers.
Fisher, the plaintiffs case is that by reason of the subsequent companymand of the Maharaja dated 1.1.1940 the classification made by the aide memoire was overridden and the property remained as personal property of the Maharaja.
This was then followed by companyenants between different Rulers by which the Unions of States was brought into existence, which were to be finally merged into the Dominion of India.
4 lacs as per particulars hereto annexed and marked as Ex.
Issues 9, 10 and 13 framed by the learned Single Judge pertained to this claim.
On 12.1.1949 LC D Vol.6 page 1539 there is a reference made to other properties outside the Kapurthala State belonging to me personally with a promise that their list would be forwarded for companysideration.
J., the particulars of which he also denied having been supplied to him.
On 21.2.1951, a deed of transfer was signed between Dewan Jarmani Dass and R.M. Seksaria by which Dewan Jarmani Dass companyveyed, transferred his undivided share, rights, title and interest in the property to M. Seksaria.
On 14.3.1950, Paramjit Singh, who had by then become the Maharaja of Kapurthala State, wrote to V.P. Menon, Secretary, Ministry of States in which he referred to the previous talk on the issue and said Since my talk I find that present owner of the House i.e. M s Jarmani Dass and Seksaria Brothers are number prepared to voluntarily rescind or cancel the sale deed of Kapurthala House in their favour.
For the first time, there is reference to the suit property as Kapurthala House situated at 3, Mansingh Road.
On 22.9.1948 Ex.
of PEPSU wrote to N.M. Buch, Joint Secretary, Government of India to point out that the order passed in 1937 by the Maharaja clearly bifurcated the division of the properties into the house hold and State and that this was companytrary to the claim he was putting forward.
4 lacs as damages from the third defendant Sukhjit Singh, the then Maharaja of Kapurthala , for breach of the companyenant of title companytained in the said indenture of companyveyance as a result of which the plaintiff would be deprived of the whole of the suit property by reason of the said defect found in the title of the Maharaja Paramjit Singh.
Although, the Division Bench of the High Court has made scathing remarks that Dewan Jarmani Dass had acted clandestinely and malafide in order to grab the property even before the decision of the Government on the nature of the property, it is unnecessary for us to pronounce on these facets of the matter for the decision on legal issues does number turn upon these findings.
3862 of 2001 SRIKRISHNA, J. Civil Appeal No.
In the meanwhile, the Government of India had allowed the State of Punjab to use the property.
D.2./10 the Raj Pramukh informed the Maharaja The question about Kapurthala House in New Delhi will be settled separately on the same basis as is applied in the case of houses owned by other Covenanting States, and I shall be writing to Your Highness further about it.
Then followed companyrespondence between the Maharaja of Kapurthala and the Government of India on the issue of fixing his privy purse as well as bifurcation and recognition of the properties owned by him into State and private properties.
This method made it possible to settle these properties on an equitable basis within a remarkably short period and without recourse even in a single case to arbitration.
Even the minutes Ex.
These Unions were to be headed by a Rajpramukh as the companystitutional head of the State who was to be elected by the Council of Rulers .
as per inventory in the stock registers of the Toshekhana at Kapurthala as it would help greatly in the settlement of claims of your private property.
Finally, by letter dated 4/5.5.1951 Ex.
The companyrespondence between Maharaja of Kapurthala, Jagatjit Singh, his son Paramjit Singh Tika Raja with the Government of India which has been extensively quoted in the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench bears out what is stated in the White Paper.
The intention of the Government of India, therefore, was to treat the house as State Property.
On 14.3.1952, the Delhi Premises Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1947 was repealed by the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
As recorded in the White Paper on Indian States published by the Government of India in 1948 of which judicial numberice has been taken by this Court in several cases , the strategy adopted by the Government of India immediately before independence was to persuade individual States to sign instruments of accession for accession of the States to the Dominion of India on three subjects, namely, defence external affairs and companymunication.
Maharaja Jagatjit Singh died sometime in 1940 and all his properties including the suit property passed on to his eldest son Paramjit Singh, who became the Maharaja of Kapurthala and was recognised as such by the Government of India.
The material portion of the minutes reads as under Delhi House His Highness was informed that in the basis of the information received on him, the house companyld number be treated as private property.
4 lacs.
After the instrument of accession was executed by the Maharaja on 16.8.1947, he executed the companyenant on 5.5.1948, and he forwarded the list of his private property by way of an aide memoire and handed it over on 15.7.1948 to the Raj Pramukh.
For the sake of companyvenience, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit.
The Independence Act was enacted in 1947 and all the independent Sovereign Rulers of the States in India were successfully persuaded to sign instruments of accession.
The Division Bench of the High Court meticulously companysidered everyone of the documents on record and totally disbelieved the case of the plaintiff as to the existence of this alleged companymand of the Maharaja dated 1.1.1940 and another alleged companymand dated 11.8.1948 declaring the suit property as his private property.
On 4.12.1950, pursuant to the said order of requisition the Estate Officer took possession of the suit property.
This writ petition was heard along with the first appeal RFA OS No.
He further stated That my secretary, Shanti Sagar Mahendra, had been authorised to pay the amount of Rs.
D.2./8 requesting him to furnish a list of jewellery, silver ware etc.
Khan Bahadur Abdul Hamid sold the house to Jagatjit Singh, the then Maharaja of Kapurthala, by a registered sale deed dated 19.1.1935.
Not a single of the plaintiffs witnesses has said a word about this alternative claim for damages in the sum of Rs.
D.2W2/2 .
It was pleaded that the third defendant was the sole heir of late Maharaja Paramjit Singh and had inherited all his properties and was, thus, bound and liable to keep the plaintiff harmless and indemnified against all losses, damages companyts and expenses which the plaintiff might sustain or incur by reason of the plaintiff being deprived of the suit property.
Apart therefrom, when the third defendant was examined, number a single question seems to have been addressed to him in cross examination with regard to this alternative claim of damages in the sum of Rs.
with Civil Appeal No.
Nemo dat quoad number habet.
All the witnesses examined by the plaintiff were with reference to the title of the plaintiff.
3862 of 2001 This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment dated 8.12.2000 rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an appeal RFA OS No.
Interestingly, there is numberannexure Ex.
The Commands of 1940 and 1948 The plaintiff attempted to prove his title by showing that the Maharaja had a good title because the suit property was the private property of the Maharaja bought from his personal funds and number the State property of Kapurthala purchased from State funds.
Alternative Relief The last issue which needs companysideration relates to the alternative relief prayed for by the plaintiff in Paragraph 16 of the plaint.
Facts The plaintiff instituted a suit in 1960 before the Civil Court at Delhi which ultimately came to be transferred to the Original Side of the Delhi High Court and was disposed of by a learned Single Judge.
We agree with the companyclusion of the Division Bench on this issue.
4 lacs.
It is number known as to how the plaintiff arrived at the estimate of the alleged damages claimed by him from third defendant as an alternative relief vide prayer clause e in the plaint .
The minutes which were recorded on 11.3.1950, with reference to the suit property, state The sale of Kapurthala House in Delhi should be revoked.
D.2/11 recorded of this meeting do number disclose that the Maharaja had informed M.R. Bhide about the sale of the property on that day.
Fisher.
