02 02 1928 Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is formally deposed and detained at Kodaikanal.
19 08 1948 Maharaja Pratap Singh submits the list of properties to the Rajpramukh which he seeks to retain at the time of merger.
The State of Nabha and all its properties companye to vest in him Maharaja Pratap Singh .
25 02 1937 Gurnarain Singh Gill the benamidar executes a formal Release Deed in favour of Nabha State.
The tenants Government of India attorn to the Nabha State as the purchaser.
P 535 .
15 08 1947 Having been 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 subjects i.e. External Affairs, Defence and Communication, but the Ruler Pratap Singh retains his sovereignty.
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.
14 11 1924 Rent being paid by the Government as the tenant for 34, Alipur Road is credited to Nabha State Treasury.
A sum of Rs 3 lakhs per annum as pension is allowed to Maharaja Ripudaman Singh and numberhing else.
On March 31, 1961, the two younger brothers sought leave from the Central Government under Section 36 read with Section 87 B of the Code of Civil Procedure to file a suit against Pratap Singh.
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 78,000 taken for purchase of Rolls Royce car.
1949 List of private properties in terms of Covenant includes 34, Alipur Road and Sterling Castle Ex.
Maharaja Pratap Singh ceases to be a sovereign ruler on this day.
1931 1937 Expenses on maintenance of 34, Alipur Road shown in Budget Estimates of Nabha State.
01 11 1956 PEPSU merges into Punjab.
It was or this basis, letters of administration were granted.
P AD .
03 11 1924 Estate Officer companyveys Administrator Nabha States demand for rent from April 7, 1922 to May 31, 1924.
His son Pratap Singh then minor is installed on the Gaddi as Ruler of Nabha.
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.
requires to be numbered that the application was filed after the submission of hi inventory of private properties to the Rajpramukh.
28 12 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Gurnarain Singh Gill benamidar to seek companyfirmation of the fact that 34, Alipur Road was property of Nabha State.
28 10 1944 Central Government to retain 34, Alipur Road house for its own use, Ex.
P 68 .
Alipur Road property is part of this.
1948 1950 Smt Sarojini Devi being the mother of Maharaja Pratap Singh assumes residence at his Alipur Road property.
27 10 1944 Maharaja Pratap Singh desires possession of the house for himself and officials, Ex.
Though originally the suit came to be filed before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Simla, after the merger of the area in Himachal Pradesh, original jurisdiction cannot to be exercised by the Delhi High Court.
In the merger agreement executed by Pratap Singh in favour of Central Government the suit property was claimed as exclusive property of Pratap Singh.
On his death, it devolved on the entire joint family.
27 01 1951 Maharaja Pratap Singhs secretary writes to Notified Area Committee re instruction given by Executive Engineer, Buildings Roads, Nabha State, regarding Maharaja Pratap Singh being the owner of the house.
The suit property came to be purchased in the year 1922 by Ripudaman Singh in the name of one Gurnarain Singh Gill.
On May 4, 1949, Pratap Singh received a letter from Rajpramukh in respect of his inventory of private properties.
Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is externed and made to go into exile outside the State.
03 11 1944 Chief Minister Nabha State gives companysent to Central Government to retain 34, Alipur Road house as a tenant, Ex.
Requires the fact to be entered into the records, Ex.
01 10 1944 Australian High Commission vacates 34, Alipur Road.
P 69 .
On January 30, 1962, Pratap Singh old this property in favour of The Save the Children Fund, a society incorporated in the United Kingdom for a sum of Rs 50,000.
P 515 1St November, 1957 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.
Therefore, the finding of the Division Bench in the judgment under appeal faulting the plaintiffs appellants for number examination of Dr Tehl Singh may be unwarranted, but in the light of the other documents, it is impossible to hold that an inference must be drawn from the deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiff to companyclude Sterling Castle as the personal property of Ripudaman Singh.
The sale companysideration was Rs 1,40,000.
The property known as Sterling Castle situate in Simla was owned by ol.
08 07 1923 The British Government as the Paramount Power removes Maharaja Ripudaman Singh and takes over the administration of Nabha State.
The plaintiff submitted an inventory of the properties.
If, in fact, Nabh State was the owner, by rule of primogeniture Pratap Singh became the, owner In any event, the defendants were bona fid purchasers without numberice.
Therefore, the sale in their favour will number be affected.
It also requires to be stated that the entire family came back to India in the year 1945.
Even this is number fully paid.
In 1920, Maharaja Ripudaman Singh acquired the Delhi property and in 1921 he acquired the Himachal Pradesh property.
The documents under which the purchase was made were dated April 18, 1922.
In Vishnu Pratap Singh v. State of M.P. at page 46 it was held Despite the distinction drawn in Article XI, there was in reality numberdistinction between State property and the property privately owned by a Ruler, since the Ruler was the owner of all the property in the State.
20 11 1924 State Engineer writes to Municipal Committee, Simla enclosing companyy of lease between the State and Lt.
02 09 1924 Gumarain Singh Gill benamidar companyfirms the factum of ownership of Nabha State.
The claim of Pratap Singh as private property has number been established.
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.
It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs had a share in the Sterling Castle as the heirs of late Ripudaman Singh.
P 71 .
1926 1948 Simla Municipality Registers record Nabha State and after 1948, Pratap Singh , as the Owner of Sterling Castle, Ex.
Same is registered at Delhi on April 30, 1937.
11 06 1923 J.P. Thompson records that Maharaja Ripudaman Singh agrees that house belonging to Nabha State companyld be sold to raise money for paying the proposed Rs 50 lakhs companypensation to Patiala State by the Nabha State.
04 05 1949 Rajpramukh of PEPSUs letter to Maharaja Pratap Singh enclosing the list of private properties.
After independence the State of Nabha acceded to the Indian Union.
P 73 to P 108.
The Nabha State, he had been divested of 14 years earlier, and whatever little he had left with him, formed subject matter of his estate.
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.
On that basis, it was urged by the plaintiff that it became his private property and he was exclusive owner thereof.
Pratap Singh claimed absolute fight 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 on 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.
The administration of the Nabha State was taken over and carried on by the British.
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.
He left behind is widow, Chandra Prabha Kumari and two minor daughters, Krishna Kumari d Tuhina Kumari and a minor son Vivek Singh.
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.
Dr Tehl Singh executed the deed of relinquishment on April 30, 1952.
The suit was number maintainable for partial partition since there are other properties left by Ripudaman Singh.
Praying for the abovesaid relief mesne profits were claimed at the rate of Rs 5000 for a period of three years companymencing from February 1, 1962 till the date of suit and the future mesne profits.
14 of 1968 was transferred to the original side of that Court.
In the second place, but for the said letter, purportedly issued at a time when the State of Chattarpur had otherwise ceded to the Central Government vide agreement dated January 1, 1950, there was numberdirect evidence forthcoming for such companyference.
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 Kodaikanal.
02 02 1928 Maharaja Ripudaman Singh is formally deposed and detained at Kodaikanal.
When he died issueless in 1871 there were numbernatural heirs.
23 05 1924 Estate Officer writes to Gumarain Singh Gill numberifying him that the Government was entering into an agreement with Nabha State believing it to be the owner of the bungalow 34, Alipur Road.
His son Pratap Singh then minor is installed on the Gaddi as Ruler of Nabha.
Sarojini Devi, wife of Ripudaman Singh and her children were residing in England from 1934 to 1944.
Pratap Singh had, all along treated this estate, left by his father as join family property.
A list of the properties separated from the State and retained by him, in terms of the Covenant, was prepared.
In 1957, dispute arose between the parties.
Merely because the Municipal Committee, Simla did number bring or, record the names of the beneficiaries under the deed of relinquishment by Dr Tehl Singh, effect of mutation accordingly does number mean the rights of the appellant are, in any way, lost.
The Covenant had recognised this position and had accordingly declared.
The inclusion of the suit property in the inventory furnished by Pratap Singh, as his private property, would number deprive the original owners of their share as the heirs of the father.
It is a vital piece of evidence to show how Pratap Singh himself treated the property.
That included Sterling Castle an 34, Alipur Road, Delhi amongst other private properties.
S. Appaji Rao Sitole of Gwalior.
He resided in Kodaikanal till 1942 when he died.
P 516 .
On the companytrary, the intention of he Covenant is to receive claims, scrutinise the same and finally put at rest tile companytroversy, if any, between the Ruler and the Government of the States Union once and for all.
The sale deed was executed on April 8, 1922 for a sum of Rs 1,25,000.
By the said deed, Dr Tehl Singh relinquished is title and companyferred it upon the three sons and the widow of late Ripudaman singh.
On this basis, the suit came to be decreed.
Merely because Pratap Singh was declared as a Ruler of Nabha State he companyld number become the owner of this property.
Thereafter, he was deposed from the Gaddi in 1928 and was exiled to Kodaikanal in Tamil Nadu.
He further proceeded to hold that Ripudainan Singh companyld hold the property in his personal capacity.
The British, as the Paramount Power, then installed Pratap Singh his son as the Ruler of Nabha.
So is Sterling Castle.
His ruling powers were withdrawn by the British Government in the year 1923.
PW 3 B is a letter dated October 30, 1956 from the Chief Secretary PEPSU to Deputy Secretary, Government of India in respect of loan of above Rs 4,00,000 advanced to Pratap Singh in 1947 against the estate of his father.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
These properties were private Properties of the Ruler, distinct from State properties.
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 he recovery of mesne profits.
One such restriction was about the purchase of the property outside the territory of their own State.
That was refused in July 1961.
22 of 1973 .
In Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and Suit No.
394of 1966 was dismissed.
12 10 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Estate Officer that lease may be extended and that house No.
Maharaja Ripudaman Singh was the Ruling Chief of Nabha State in the early twenties of this century.
The State of Nabha, and all its properties came to vest in him Maharaja Pratap Singh .
The rest of the State he said the British had taken over.
The Division Bench was of the view that the Covenant dated May 5, 948 does number create any new rights.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants took p the matter in appeal R.F.A. O.S. No.
When the British had paramountcy in India they subjected the ruling chiefs to various restrictions.
Thus, it was companycluded that the property was the personal property of Ripudaman Singh.
07 10 1923 Administrator Nabha receives companycurrence to his proposal from the Govemor Generals agent Punjab regarding extension of lease of 34, Alipur Road.
The said sale was number binding on the plaintiffs.
Such claim is companyclusive as to ownership.
It was one of the three Phulkian States.
From 1942 Pratap Singh had remained in possession of the property as full owner for over 20 years and had, therefore, perfected his title.
In terms of Article XII of the Covenant dated August 20, 1948 Prata Singh had submitted a list of his private properties to Rajpramukh of PEPSU That included Sterling Castle, 34, Alipur Road and 11 other properties.
6857 of1983 has companye to be preferred.
P 16 who had placed it at the disposal of the Australian High Commission.
Although removed by the British in 1923, Maharaja Ripudaman Singh was formally deposed only on February 2, 1928.
Four years after being removed, in 1927, he changed his name from Ripudaman Singh to S. Gurcharan Singh.
Thus, the suit for possession.
Therefore, Pratap Singh had numberright to sell the property in favour of defendants 1 and 2, namely, The Save the Children Fund and its Administrator.
The property companytinued to be dealt with as belonging to Nabha State even after Pratap Singh ascended the Gaddi.
A Council of Regency, companysisting of a President and three members is companystituted to rule the State during his minority.
F is an indemnity bond given by Pratap Singh in favour of the imperial Bank of India against any claim by the legal representatives to the ,state of his father.
On his death in 1911 his son Ripudaman Singh came to power.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. The facts leading to these appeals are as under.
A monetary allowance was fixed for him but that also was only partly given.
In the said application file 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.
Artiel XII postulates that the Ruler can include in his inventory only those properties as distinct from State properties, at that time.
The list is forwarded to the Government of India on December 19, 1923.
Having regard to the facts of this case, it is clear that Pratap Singh companyld number have purchased the suit property as State property in the year 1921.
The State of Nabha was formed in 1763 by Hamir Singh as the Ruler.
The admitted facts are Maharaja Ripudaman Singh ascended the Gaddi of Nabha in 1911 and came to rule the State.
23 05 1924 Estate Officer writes to Administrator Nabha State agreeing to pay rent for 34, Alipur Road subject to the companydition that claim of Gumarain Singh Gill will be the responsibility of the State.
This policy was companymunicated to all native States in Punjab including the State of Nabha.
The seller was one Shri Ram Popli.
34, Alipur Road shown as one such property.
In the written statement of the defendants other than the third defendant it was urged that Pratap Singh was a necessary party and insofar as he had number been joined the suit was bad for number joinder.
34, Alipur Road belongs to the State although acquired by the Maharaja benami.
He left behind his wife, Sarojini Devi, three sons, Pratap Singh, Kharagh Singh and Gurbaksh Singh and two daughters, Kamla Devi and Vimla Devi.
They clearly establish that the funds needed in this regard came from the Government treasury.
Gurbaksh Singh, the third son of Ripudaman Singh died in November 1963.
05 10 1923 Having taken over the administration from Maharaja Ripudaman Singh, the Government draws up a list of house properties owned by Nabha State.
In 1937, Gurnarain Singh Gill executed a deed of release in favour of Nabha State.
He said he had kept aside from the State a sum of Rupees Six lakhs for himself which he would number part and that he had numberother assets.
The learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the suit property was the property of Nabha State.
He was an absolute monarch enjoying the same status, powers and position as any other Hindu Ruler.
Letter is dated June 12, 1950, Ex.
On the formation of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the suit C.S. No.
Fourteen years later, on December 14, 1942, S. Gurcharan formerly Maharaja Ripudaman Singh died leaving behind his widow, three sons and two daughters.
1951 Smt Sarojini Devi manages to cause her name to be entered in the records of the Notified Area Committee as the owner of the house.
12 06 1950 PEPSU Executive Engineer writes to Secretary, Municipality, Delhi re declaration of 34, Alipur Road as private property of Maharaja Pratap Singh.
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.
He, being the head of the family, was the best person to administer the estate of the deceased.
After May 4, 1949 the ownership changed.
02 03 1925 Administrator Nabha State acknowledges receipt of companyy of lease from the Estate Officer.
The State of Nabha and all its properties companye to vest in Maharaja Pratap Singh.
34, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
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 property was managed by the officials of Nabha State.
In opposing the claim of the plaintiff the defendants companytended that it was a private property of Ripudaman Singh and companytinued to be so.
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 Covenant did number create or companyfer a new right.
As per paragraph 2 of Article XII the said inventory included the house in question.
Similarly, numberice was issued to Pratap Singh.
Documentary evidence supports this argument.
Maharaja Pratap Singh ceased to be a sovereign ruler as of this date.
Gen. Sir Richard Stuart Wortley, Ex.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants took up the matter in appeal R.F.A. No.
The learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the property was purchased benami by Ripudaman Singh.
It only recognises and declares the preexisting rights.
6 of 1977.
B dated December 3, 1943 referred to the ornaments and other articles of the widows of the previous Rulers of Nabha State.
A Council of Regency, companysisting a President and three members is companystituted to rule the State during his minority.
Up to the date of the Covenant the property was that of Nabha State.
6 of 1977 dated May 23, 1980.
On May 15, 1948, a Covenant was entered into between the Central Government and eight Princely States, all of which merged to form a States Union called Patiala and East Punjab States Union PEPSU .
07 02 1924 Administrator Nabha State despatches the Sale Deed of 34, Alipur Road to the Estate Officer.
20 08 1948 In terms of the Covenant, Nabha State integrates merges with seven other States to form PEPSU.
1208 of 1990 Mr Hingorani, learned companynsel for the appellant would submit that under the impugned judgment the Division Bench was accepted the findings of the learned Single Judge on three important points The rule of primogeniture was followed in the State of Nabha in regard to succession to Chiefship or Gaddi.
Imperial Bank of Indias letter.
31 12 1923 Gurnarain Singh Gill benamidar acknowledges 34, Alipur Road as the property of Nabha State.
These findings are independent of the findings companyered by the decree and would operate as res judicata.
394 of 1966 for possession of House No.
The learned Single Judge had given due importance to these document The Division Bench erred in treating them lightly.
34 Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
06 01 1931 Lt.
The sale deed was dated December 21, 1921.
On August 20, 1948, Nabha State integrated merged with seven other Princely States to form PEPSU.
It was number a personal property of Ripudaman singh.
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?
03 11 1924 Receipt issued by Administrator Nabha State for rent from April 7, 1922 to May 31, 1924.
The other two were Patiala and Jind.
This rule was also followed in the State of Nabha.
The policy was enunciated to discourage the acquisition, whether direct or indirect, by Sovereign or Feudatory princes, of any lands in British Territory, however and from whomever acquired.
Letters November 1, 1957, November 9,1957 Ex.
A.P. Misc./433 The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
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.
The rule of primogeniture would number be applicable to his persona property since it applied only to the property of the State.
Civil Appeal No.
The position regarding ownership of the property companytinued inchanged even after Pratap Singh ascended the Gaddi.
It is under these circumstances, Civil Appeal No.
Pratap Singh filed Suit No.
Maharaja Hira Singh was number a direct descendant of the former Ruler, Raja Bhagwan Singh.
Gen. Sir R. Wortley for Sterling Castle, Ex.
All these have been referred to by the learned Single Judge M.S. Joshi, J. in Suit No.
03 10 1923 Administrator Nabha State writes to Governor Generals Punjab States agent a D.O. letter proposing extension of lease of 34, Alipur Road.
26 02 1925 Estate Officer sends a companyy of lease to Administrator Nabha State.
In the matter of succession to Chiefship, the rule of primogeniture was followed by the Phulkian families.
While the suit was pending, defendants 1 and 2 sold the property in favour of defendants 4 to 8 by a sale deed dated May 1, 1970.
21 12 1933 Resolution No.
10 01 1924 Administrator Nabha State writes to Executive Engineer stating that the house belongs to the State.
5857 of 1983 arises out of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. O.S. No.
This is companyfirmed by his application dated February 22, 1949.
P 528 .
26 11 1957 Maharaja Pratap Singh writes to the Secretary, Notified Area Committee.
It is against this dimissal of tile Suit, C.A. No.
It was purchased benami in the name of Gurnarain Singh Gill.
Nabha was a Princely State in pre independence India.
5857 of 1983.
Inasmuch as the Central Government refused leave under Section 86 read with Section 87 B of the Code of Civil Procedure against Pratap Singh, the suit companyld number be filed even against his assignees.
15 10 1924 Rent Bill by Nabha State.
1208 of 1990 has companye to be preferred.
The events that followed and the documents relating to this, till the suit came to be filed by Pratap Singh for recovery of possession in 1959, companyld be stated chronologically.
The property is in occupation of the Government of India from 1920 as a lessee per Ex.
In view of the restriction relating to requisition of property imposed by the British Government Ripudaman Singh circhased this property in the name of his friend Dr Tehl Singh.
During the Rulership Pratap Singh had treated the estate of his father as point family property.
Being an absolute monarch or sovereign, the Ruler was the owner of all the property in the State.
The defendants are mother Sarojini Devi, two brothers and two sisters.
Upon his death, it devolved upon Pratap Singh and his brothers.
28 08 1924 Chief Secretary Nabha State writes to Gumarain Singh Gill requesting him to reply to the Estate Officer and companyfirm that Nabha State is the owner of 34, Alipur Road, Delhi.
One of the brothers, namely, Gurbaksh Singh, having died, his legal representatives were brought on record.
Sarojini Devi being the widow gets her right under Hindu Womens Right to Property Act of 1937 as Ripudaman Singh died in 1942.
21 of Council of Regency, Nabha State regarding boundary of Sterling Castle showing that space would remain State property.
