However, those suits were resisted by the State of Punjab, the defendant in the suits, by filing written statements in that behalf.
in each of the present appeals, who were the brothers of Maharaja Pratap Singh, the Ruler of erstwhile Nabha State, long after its accession to Indian Dominian and its subsequent merger in PEPSU and further merger of PEPSU in State of Punjab, filed two original suits of July 13, 1960 in the companyrt of Sub Judge, First Class, Patiala, for recovery of possession of Bir Bhadson situated in Village Agaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala to be referred to hereinafter as Bir from the State of Punjab, since bir, once the State property of the State of Nabha had become state property of the State of Punjab and was part of its State Forest.
The defendant State of Punjab presented appeals against the said decrees in the suits before the District judge, Patiala.
That on April 25, 1948, Maharaja Pratap Singh addressed a letter P.W.1/1 to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh which read NABHA 25th April, 1948.
With the companying into force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, when the State of Nabha along with other princely states in India got out of British Paramountcy and became a free and independent State, it accepted to the Dominion of India created under that very Act on subjects External Affairs, Defence and Communications, falling in line with similar other States in India.
The averments in the plaints, of the said suits filed against the State of Punjab, as companyld be gathered from record in the present appeals, were in substance That Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh Plaintiff in one suit and Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh Plaintiff in other suit were brothers of Maharaja Pratap Singh who was the Ruler of Nabha State.
P.W.1/1 objected to the companynsel for the plaintiff .
O.P. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within Limitation?
Thereafter, the Ruler of Nabha and the Rulers of Faridkot, Jind, Kapurthala, Malerkotla, Patiala, Kalsia and Nalagarh who desired to establish a Union of States companyprising the territories of their respective States with a companymon executive, legislature and judiciary by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union PEPSU , entered into a companyenant dated May 5, 1948, which was companycurred with by Government of India by guaranteeing enforcement of its provisions.
P.W. 1/1 was number shown in the list of my private property.
The cause of action for those suits was founded on a letter dated April 25,1948 said to have been addressed to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh by Maharaja Pratap Singh, while he was the sovereign ruler of the State of Nabha.
Maharaja Pratap Singh was the Ruler of the princely State of Nabha eversince the year 1941, which was then the subject state of British Paramountcy.
On the eve of merger of Nabha State with Pepsu the property mentioned in Ex.
Subsequently, with the companying into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, PEPSU, having got merged in the State of Punjab, all its territory which included the territory of Nabha State, became a part of the territory of the Punjab State.
The certain rules must have been framed to regulate the working of ijlass e alia.
PEPSU when, according to the said companyenant, came into existence on August 20, 1948 , the territory of Nabha State ceased to exist and became a part of the territory of the PEPSU.
1,2 and 4 which had been framed in the suits.
which companytinued to be with Nabha State till date of companying into existence of the said companyenant and till the further date on which PEPSU came into existence pursuant to that companyenant, came to vest in the state of PEPSU, because Maharaja Pratap Singh, the Ruler of the State of Nabha, along with all other Rulers of princely States who were the signatories to the said companyenant made over the administrations of their respective States to Raj Pramukh of PEPSU on August 20,1948, when the State of PEPSU actually came into existence, since companyld be ascertained from the Articles of that very companyenant dated May 5, 1948 pursuant to which PEPSU State was formed, material Articles of that companyenant which bear on vesting of state properties and private properties of the Rulers of princely States, including the State of Nabha, which merged in PEPSU, are reproduced Article VI The Ruler of each Covenanting 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.
O.P. Whether in fact the letter of grant or gift dated 25th April, 1948 was ever written by the then Ruler and as such is binding on the present defendant?
The proposal for the grant of land were initiated by the ijlass e alia, who made relevant recommendations to me.
P.W.1/1 by me.
P.W. 1/1 , addressee of that letter Exp.
Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh and Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, the appellant since deceased by L.Rs.
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.
Exhibit P.W.1/1 does number bear the signatures of any member of the ijlass e alia and it also does number show whether the recommendation was made by the ijlass e alia.
All officials order given by me used to have an official seal or some kind of typewriting to indicate the official capacity.
P.W. 1/1 even if is assumed to companystitute grant of Bir, the State property of Nabha State made by Maharaja Pratap Singh, the Ruler, in favour of his brother Gurbax Singh on April 25, 1948, as is held by companyrts below, that grant, according to the aforesaid categorical admission of Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, was number accepted by him till he returned from America to India in November, 1948.
1995 1 Suppl.
XX by G.P. Ijlass e alia was companystituted under my orders in the year 1941.
Therefore, the letter Ex.
When we companye to letter Exp.
I understand that you may be returning to India with Maji or elseYou can instruct Chootaji to do the needful for you.
P.W.1/1 does number bear any seal of office under my signatures.
No orders were given to the ijlass e alia to implement Ex.
P.W. 1/1 Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, who has given evidence as P.W. 3, what he states on oath of the acceptance of grant Bir companysisting of land and building, the State property of Nabha State, is the following I accepted this grant made through the above letter, when I came back to India about November, 1948.
Hope you are keeping well and I am asking chhotaji to deliver this letter to you with all good wishes from all and love.
O.P. Relief The Sub Judge who tried the suits after the framing of the said issues in them, recorded his findings on all the issues, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant the State of Punjab.
Your affectionately, sd Pratap Singh Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, Nabha Algngein Lodge, 526 Stewast Ave, Itica N.Y. U.S.A. The said letter which was handed over to Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh for being passed on to Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh since amounted to grant of Bir by Maharaja Pratap Singh, the then ruler of Nabha State, made as its sovereign in favour of his brother Maharaja Kumar Gurbax Singh, as his subject, expressing therein his desire that the Bir companyld be divided equally between him and his brother Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh, both of them had become the grantees of Bir acquiring title thereto and were, therefore, entitled to get possession of the same from the State of Nabha before its merger in PEPSU and from PEPSU after the merger of State of Nabha in it and from the State of Punjab the merger of PEPSU in it.
O.P. Whether the document in dispute is a gift deed or grant and is enforceable at law against the present defendant?
Chhotaji is the pet name of Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh.
a all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State 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 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 Stare properties belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh.
No orders were given by me to the revenue authorities to implement Ex.
The District Judge who heard those appeals, did number disturb the findings of the trial companyrt rendered on issues Nos.
He decreed the suits accordingly.
Since both PEPSU and the State of Punjab the defendant in those suits, did number give possession of the said Bir to plaintiffs despite several requests made by them to pepsu and the State of Punjab, the suits were being filed for recovery of possession of the same from the State of Punjab the ultimate successor of State of Nabha, within a period of 12 years from the date of the letter, i.e., April 25, 1948, as allowed by law.
