P 73 to P 108.
1951 Smt.
Sarojini Devi being the mother of Maharaja Pratap Singh assumes residence at his Alipur Road property.
Sarojini Devi, Kharagh Singh and the minor children of Gurbaksh Singh filed a suit for partition and in the alternative for joint possession and also for the recovery of mesne profits.
P 30 .
03 11 1924 Receipt issued by Administrator Nabha State for rent from 7 4 1922 to 31 5 1924.
25 02 1937 Gurnarain Singh Gill the benamidar executes a formal Release Deed in favour of Nabha State.
15 08 1947 Having freed of the British paramountcy by the Indian Independence Act, 1947 Nabha State like the other five hundred and odd States, accedes to the dominion of India on three subject i. e. External Affairs, Defence and Communication, but the Ruler Pratap Singh retains his sovereignty.
20 08 1948 In terms of the Covenant, Nabha State integrates merges with seven other States to form PEPSU.
Same is registered at Delhi on 30 4 1937.
19 08 1948 Maharaja Pratap Singh submits the lists of properties to the Rajpramukh he seeks to retain at the time of merger.
A sum of Rs.
01 11 1957 Dr. Anand Prakash as Advocate for Rajmata Sarojini Devi writes to Home Ministry a letter where he alleges agreement for giving of 34, Alipur Road to Sarojini Devi by Maharaja Pratap Singh against money for purchase of Rolls Royce car.
07 10 1923 Administrator Nabha receives companycurrence to his proposal from the Governor Generals Agent Punjab regarding extension of Lease of 34, Alipur Road.
01 11 1956 PEPSU merges into Punjab.
P 528 .
Alipur Road property is part of this.
That included Sterling Castle and 34, Alipur Road, Delhi amongst other private properties.
Though the property ostensibly stood in the name of Dr. Tehl Singh it was Ripudaman Singh who was the real owner, the sale companysideration having been provided by him.
The property companytinued to be dealt with as belonging to Nabha State even after Pratap Singh ascended the Gaddi.
12 06 1950 PEPSU Executive Engineer writes to Secretary.
P AD .
Having been deposed and ceasing to be a Ruler and being a companymoner, subject to law, former Maharaja Ripudaman Singh settled down in the south Indian hill station of Kodaifcanal.
P 535 .
On 20 8 1948, Nabha State integrated merged with seven other Princely States to form PEPSU.
17 08 1959 Maharaja Pratap Singh files suit for recovery of possession of 34, Alipur Road in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, which is later transferred to the High Court of Delhi.
P 515 No.
In the written statement of the defendants other than the third defendant it was urged that Pratap Singh was a necessary party in so far as he had number been joined the suit was bad for number joinder.
Sarojini Devi manages to cause her name to be entered in the records of the Notified Area Committee as the owner of the house.
1948 1950 Smt.
Dr. Tehl Singh executed the deed of relinquishment on 30th April, 1952.
Therefore, the sale in their favour will number be affected.
The State of Nabha and all its properties companye to vest in him Maharaja Pratap Singh .
02 02 1928 Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is formally deposed and detained at Kodaikanal.
02 03 1925 Administrator Nabha State acknowledges receipt of companyy of Lease from the Estate Officer.
Similarly, numberice was issued to Pratap Singh.
1949 List of private properties in terms, of Covenant includes 34, Alipur Road and Sterling Castle Ex.
The events that followed and the documents relating to this, till the suit came to be filed by Pratap Singh for recovery of possession 1959, companyld be stated chronologically.
He further proceeded to hold that Ripudaman Singh companyld hold the property in his personal capacity.
In opposing the claim of the plaintiff the defendants companytended that it was a private property of Ripudaman Singh and companytinued to be so.
P 516 .
05 10 1923 Having taken over the administrator from Maharaja Ripudaman Singh, the Government draws up a list of house properties owned by Nabha State.
On January 30, 1962, Pratap Singh sold this property in favour of the save the Children Fund, a society incorporated in the United Kingdom for a sum of Rs.
It also requires to be stated that the entire family came back to India in the year 1954.
The property known as Sterling Castle situate in Simla was owned by Col.
The rule of primogeniture would number be applicable to his personal property since it applied only to the property of the State, Merely because Pratap Singh was declared as a Ruler of Nabha State he companyld number become the owner of this property.
Therefore, Pratap Singh had numberright to sell the property in favour of defendants 1 and 2, namely, the Save Children Fund and its Administrator.
Colonel Coldstream, President Council of Regency Nabha State directs the Manager, Nabha Estate Simla that Insurance Policy of Sterling Castle be obtained in the name of President Council of Regency.
On his death, it devolved on the entire joint family.
He said he had kept aside from the State of sum of Rupees six lakhs for himself which he would number part and that he had numberother assets.
Imperial Bank of Indias letter.
Praying for the abovesaid relief mesne profits wore claimed at the rate of Rs.
13 04 1933 to 12 4 1934 Expenditure on roads and buildings of Nabha Estate analysed in which expenses pertaining to Sterling Castle also included.
No plea that this property belonged to S. Gurclaaran formerly Ripudaman Singh and that his clients succeeded to it on 14 12 1942.
It is against this dismissal of the suit C. A. No.
Maharaja Pratap Singh ceases to be a sovereign ruler on this day.
On that basis, it was urged by the plaintiff that it became his private property and he was exclusive owner thereof.
The Division Bench erred in treating lightly of them.
On the companytrary, the intention of the Covenant is to receive claims, scrutinise the same and finally put at rest the companytroversy, if any, between the Ruler and the Government of the States Union once and for all.
During the Rulership Pratap Singh had treated the estate of his father as joint family property.
34, Alipur Road shown as one such property So is Sterling Castle.
She returned to India when her eldest son, Pratap Singh was to receive administrative training as he was to become the Ruler of Nabha State by the applicability of rule of primogeniture.
21 of Council of Regency, Nabha State regarding boundary of Sterling Castle showing that space would remain State Property.
On behalf of my client, Her Highness Rajmata Sarojini Devi of Nabba, I hereby apply for permission to file a suit against His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh of Nabha for the following matters Suit for declaration to my clients ownership rights in the property situate at 34, Alipore Road, Delhi.
He left behind his widow, Chandra Prabha Kumari and two minor daughters, Krishna Kumari and Tuhina Kumari and a minor son Vivek Singh.
The plaintiff submitted an inventory of the properties.
Civil Appeal No.
4 05 1949 Rajpramukh of PEPSUs letter to Maharaja Pratap Singh enclosing the list of private properties.
07 02 1924 Administrator Nabha State despatches the Sale Deed of 34, Alipur Road to the Estate Officer.
P 71 .
11 06 1923.
Though ordinary the suit came to be filed before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Simla, after the merger of the area in Himachal Pradesh, original jurisdiction came to be exercised by the Delhi High Court.
From 1942 Ripudaman Singh had remained in possession of the property as full owner for over 20 years and had, therefore, perfected his title.
It is a vital piece of evidence to show how Pratap Singh himself treated the property.
Gen. Sir Richard Stuart Wortley, Ex.
The list is forwarded to the Government of India on 19 12 1923.
When the British had paramountcy in India they subjected the ruling chiefs to various restrictions.
22 of 1973 .
Sarojini Devi, wife of Ripudaman Singh and her children were residing in England from 1934 to 1944.
If, in fact, Nabha State was the owner by rule of primogeniture Pratap Singh became the owner.
5857 of 1983.
14 of 1968 was transferred to the original side of that Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants took up the matter in appeal R. F. A. No.
6 of 1977 dated 23rd May, 1980.
Maharaja Pratap Singh ceased to be a sovereign Ruler as of this date.
Ripudaman Singhs own personal properties as distinct from State properties and succession to his personal properties were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
The State of Nabha and all its properties companye to vest in Maharaja Pratap Singh.
He resided in Kodaikaual till 1942 when he died.
A list of the properties separated from the State and retained by him, in terms of the Covenant, was prepared.
1,40,000.
Exhibit F is an indemnity bond by Pratap Singh in favour of the Imperial Bank of India against any claim by the legal representatives to the estate of his father.
His ruling powers were withdrawn by the British Government in the year 1923.
In the merger agreement executed by Pratap Singh in favour of Central Government the suit property was claimed as exclusive property of Pratap Singh.
6 of 1977.
On 15 5 1948, a Covenant was entered into between the Central Government and 8 Princely States, all of which merged to form a State Union called Patiala and East Punjab States Union PEPSU .
S. Appaji Rao Sitole of Gwalior.
In 1957, dispute arose between the parties.
Letters 1 11 1957, 9 11 1957 Ex.
03 10 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Governor General Punjab States Agent a DO tatter proposing extension of Lease of 34, Alipur Road.
Thereafter, he was deposed from the Gaddi in 1928 and was exiled to Kodaikanal in Tamil Nadu.
3 lakhs per annum as pension is allowed to Maharaja Ripudaman Singh and numberhing else.
Having regard to the facts of this case, it is clear that Pratap Singh companyld number have purchased suit property as State property in the year 1921.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and Suit No.
5857 of 1983 arises out of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. OS No.
Mharaja Ripudman Singh was the Ruling Chief of Nabha State in the early twenties of this century.
One such restriction was about the purchase of the property outside the territory of their own State.
It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs had a share in the Sterling Castle as the heirs of late Ripudaman Singh.
It is under these circumstances, Civil Appeal No.
A Council of Regency, companysisting a President and three members is companystituted to rule the State during his minority.
After 4th of May, 1949 the ownership changed.
Exhibit B dated 3rd December, 1943 referred to the ornaments and other articles of the widows of the previous Rulers of Nabha State.
10 01 1924 Administrator Nabha State writes to Executive Engineer stating that the house belongs to the State.
26 11 1957 Maharaja Pratap Singh writes to the Secretary, Notified Area Committee.
In the pre independence era the Rulers were the princes.
The affairs of Nabha State are placed in the hands of Mr. C.M.G. Ogilvie ICS as the first Administrator appointed by them, pending return to India of Mr. J. Wilson Johnston, the permanent Administrator.
Thus, it was companycluded that the property was the personal property of Ripudaman Singh, Upon his death, it devolved upon Pratap Singh and his brothers.
Documentary evidence supports this argument.
It requires to be numbered that the application was filed after the submission of his inventory of private properties to the Raj Pramukh.
It was one of the three Phulkian States.
4,00,000 advance to Pratap Singh in 1947 against the estate of his father.
He, being the head of the family, was the best person to administer the estate of the deceased.
The learned Single Judge came to be companyclusion that the property was purchased Benami by Ripudaman Singh.
Merely because the Municipal Committee, Simla did number bring on record the names of the beneficieries under the deed of relinquishment by Dr. Tehl Singh, effect mutation accordingly does number mean the rights of the appellant are, in any way, lost.
5,000 for a period of three years companymencing from 1.2.62 till the date of suit and the future mesne profits, While the suit was pending defendants 1 and 2 sold the property in favour of defendants 4 to 8 by a sale deed dated 1 5 1970.
As per paragraph 2 of Article XII the said inventory included the bouse in question.
28 08 1924 Chief Secretary Nabha State writes to Gurnarain Singh Gill requesting him to reply to the Estate Officer and companyfirm that Nabha State is the owner of 34, Alipur Road, Delhi.
20 11 1924 State Engineer writes to Municipal Committee Simla enclosing companyy of lease between the State and Lt.
It was on this basis letters of administration were granted.
The learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the suit property was the property of Nabha State.
These properties were private properties of the Ruler, distinct from State properties.
31 12 1923 Guarnarain Singh Gill benamidar acknowledges 34, Alipur Road as the property of Nabha State.
28 12 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Gurnaram Singh Gill benamtdar to seek companyfirmation of the fact the 34, Alipur Road was property of Nabha State.
This is companyfirmed by his application dated 22nd of February, 1949.
The Nabha State, be had been divested of 14 years earlier, and whatever little he had left with him, formed subject matter of his Estate.
18 01 1924 Estate Officer writes to Administrator Nabha State for production of the Sale Deed as payment of rent companyld number be made without proof of ownership.
In any event, the defendants were bona fide purchasers without numberice.
After independence the State of Nabha acceded to the Indian Union.
Gen. Sri R. Wortley for Sterling Castle.
The State of Nabha, and all its properties came to vest in him Maharaja Pratap Singh .
The position regarding ownership of the property companytinued unchanged even after Pratap Singh ascended the Gaddi.
His sou Pratap Singh then minor is installed on the Oaddi as Ruler of Nabha.
This policy was companymunicated to all native States in Punjab including the State of Nabha.
50 lakhs companypensation to Patiala State by the Nabha State.
The property was managed by the officials of Nabha State.
78,000 taken for purchase of Rolls Royce Car.
1208 of 1990 has companye to be preferred.
Even this is number fully paid.
09 11 1957 Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, writes to Maharaja Pratap Singh forwarding letter of Advocate of Sarojini Devi alleging the giving of 34, Alipur Road to Sarojini Devi by Maharaja Pratap Singh against Rs.
The sale deed was dated December 21, 1921.
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.
The claim of Pratap Singh as private property has been established.
Fourteen years later, on 14 12 1942, S. Gurcharan Singh formerly Maharaja Ripudaman Singh died leaving behind his widow, three sons and two daughters.
01 10 1944 Australian High Commission vacates 34, Alipur Road.
Gurbaksh Singh, the third son of Ripudaman Singh died in November, 1963.
He left behind his wife, Sarojini Devi, three sons, Pratap Singh, Kharagh Singh and Gurbaksh Singh and two daughters, Kamla Devi and Vimla Devi.
The tenants Government of India attorn to the Nabha State as the purchaser.
It was number a personal property of Ripudaman Singh.
1926 1948 Simla Municipality Registers record Nabha State and after 1948, Pratap Singh , as the Owner of Sterling Castle, Ex.
P 16 who had placed it at the disposal of the Australian High Commission.
On this basis, the suit came to be decreed.
394 of 1966 was dismissed.
Pratap Singh had, all along treated this estate, left by his father as joint family property.
50,000.
Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is externed and made to go into exile outside the State.
Inasmuch as the Central Government refused leave under Section 86 read with Section 87 B of the CPC against Pratap Singh, the suit companyld number be filed even against his assignees.
Upto the date of the Covenant the property was that of Nabha State.
Thus, the suit for possession.
06 01 1931 Lt.
27 01 1951 Maharaja Pratap Singhs secretary writes to Notified Area Committee re instruction given by executive Engineer, Buildings and Roads, Nabha State, regarding Maharaja Pratap Singh being the owner of the house.
A Council of Regency, companysisting a President and three members is companystituted to rule the State during his minority.
1,25,000.
Thus, answering the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, he granted a preliminary decree for partition and recovery of mesne profits in favour of the plaintiffs and the third defendant.
03 11 1924 Estate Officer companyveys Administrator Nabha States demand rent from 7 4 1922 to 31 5 1924.
The seller was one Shri Ram Popli.
The Division Bench was of the view that the Covenant dated 5th May, 1948 does number create any new rights.
The Covenant did number create or companyfer a new right.
There is one clinching evidence in the letter of the Advocate for Sarojini Devi dated 1 11 1957.
14 11 1924 Rent being paid by the Government as the tenant for 34, Alipur Road is credited to Nabha State Treasury.
Exhibit PW 3/B is a letter dated 30th October, 1956 from the Chief Secretary PEPSU to Deputy Secretary, Government of India in respect of loan of about Rs.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants took up the matter in appeal R. F. A. OS No.
Sarojini Devi being the widow gets her right under Hindu Womens Right to Property Act of 1937 as Ripudaman Singh died in 1942.
The property is in occupation of the Government of India from 1920 as a lessee per Ex.
The rest of the State he said the British bad taken over.
This rule was also followed in the State of Nabha While the eldest son became the Chief, provision was made for the younger sons for their maintenance by way of grant of jagir, land or purse.
The only surviving issue in the appeal is whether the suit property is the personal property of Pratap Singh or was he owning the property as Karta of Joint Hindu Family ?
02 09 1924 Gurnarain Singh Gill benamtdar companyfirms the factum of ownership of Nabha State.
08 07 1923 The British Government as the Paramount power removes Maharaja Ripudaman Singh and takes over the administration of Nabha State.
In the said application filed before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Delhi, for grant of letters of administration, it was clearly averred by Pratap Singh that his father had left properties in different places in India including Delhi.
The other two were Patiala and Jind.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
5857 of 1983 has companye to be preferred.
The policy was enunciated to discourage the acquisition, whether direct or indirect, by Soverign or Feudatory princes of any lands in British Territory, however and from whomever acquired.
The said sale was number binding on the plaintiffs.
The suit was number maintainable for partial partition since there are other properties left by Ripudaman Singh.
The Covenant had recognised this position and had accordingly declared.
The sale deed was executed on 8 4 1922 for a sum of Rs.
Pratap Singh filed Suit No.
All these have been referred to by the learned Single Judge M. S. Joshi, J. in Suit No.
19 12 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Secretary Foreign and Political Department, Government of India regarding possession of title deeds of various properties.
The inclusion of the suit property in the inventory furnished by Pratap Singh, as his private property, would number deprive the original owners of the share as the heirs of the father.
In the matter of succession to Chiefship, the rule of primogeniture was followed by the Phulkian families.
34, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, The defendants are mother Sarojini Devi, two brothers and two sisters.
In 1937, Gurnarain Singh Gill executed a deed of release in favour of Nabha State.
A. P. Misc./433 1st November, 1957 The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
One of the brothers, namely, Gurbaksh Singh, having died, his legal representatives were brought on record.
J. P. Thompson records that Maharaja Ripudaman Singh agrees that bouse belonging to Nabba State companyld be sold to raise money for paying the proposed Rs.
On the formation of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the suit C.S. No.
The suit property came to be purchased in the year 1922 by Ripudaman Singh in the name of one Gurnarain Singh Gill.
The sale companysideration was Rs.
On 4th May, 1949, Pratap Singh received a letter from Raj Pramukh in respect of his inventory of private propertiess.
Municipality, Delhi re declaration of 34, Alipur Road as private property of Maharaja Pratap Singh Letter is dated 12 6 1950.
394 of 1966 for possession of House No.
In view of the restriction relating to acquisition of property imposed by the British Government Ripudaman Singh purchased his property in the name of his friend Dr. Tehl Singh.
Such claim is companyclusive as to ownership.
These findings are independent of the findings companyered by the decree and would operate as res judicata.
His son Pratap Singh then minor is installed on the Gaddi as Ruler of Nabha.
Article XII postulates the Ruler can include in his inventory only those properties as distinct from State properties, at that time.
In terms of Article XII of the Covenant dated 20th August, 1948 Pratap Singh had submitted a list of his private properties to Raj Pramukh of PEPSU, That included Sterling Castle, 34, Alipur Road and 11 other properties.
1931 1937 Expenses on maintenance of 34, Alipur Road shown in Budget Estimates of Nabha State.
26 02 1925 Estate Officer sends a companyy of Lease to Administrator Nabha State.
Mohan, J. The facts leading to these appeals are as under Nabha was a Princely State in pre independence India.
02 02 1928 Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is formally deposed and detained at Kodaikanal.
By the said deed, Dr. Tehl Singh relinquished his title and companyferred it upon the three sons and the widow of late Ripudaman Singh, It is this property which forms the subject matter of the suit.
On March 31, 1961, the two younger brothers sought leave from the Central Government under Section 86 read with Section 87 B of the CPC to file a suit against Pratap Singh, That was refused in July, 1961.
20 08 1924 Estate Officer writes to Administrator Nabha State that lease of No.
Pratap Singh claimed absolute right over this property denying the title of the other heirs of Ripudaman Singh, When the Municipal Committee, Simla refused to effect mutation in their names in view of the objection raised by Pratap Singh, numberice was issued to the Municipal Committee and the Sub Registrar, Simla that the refusal to do so was number proper.
34, Alipur Road will be sent for execution on receipt of a reply from Gurnarain Singh to letter dated 23 5 1924 companyy Ex.
The clearly establish the funds needed in this regard, came from the Government treasury.
