New Delhi, May 27 In a significant order, the Supreme Court has ruled that the personal private properties of a titular ruler would pass to his successors in accordance with the Hindu or Muslim personal law instead of the customary law of primogeniture, where the eldest male lineal descendant inherited all properties.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said that while the rule of primogeniture could apply to the symbolic throne (gaddi) and titles, it does not extend to personal private properties declared during the merger of princely states.
The top court was hearing a civil dispute between Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, the government-recognised titular 'Maharaja' of Kapurthala, and his estranged wife Gita Devi and their children.
Singh claimed that as the eldest male lineal descendant, he was the sole owner of all family properties under customary law and that the Hindu Succession Act did not apply to his impartible estate.
The Supreme Court said that the issue before it was how the properties of the ruler, declared to be the private personal properties and distinct from the public properties, would devolve upon the heirs and successors.
It said that upon signing the merger covenant by princely states, the then ruler ceased to be an absolute sovereign and assumed the status of an ordinary citizen of India.
“The recognition of the Maharaja as the Ruler by the President under Article 366 (22) of the Constitution was a political or an executive act for ceremonial purposes entitling the Maharaja to receive privy purse and other connected privileges, but it was not an indicium of ownership of property,” the top court said.
It said that there was a general presumption in the country that the estate of the ruler and monarch of a princely state, according to custom, stands governed by the rule of male lineal primogeniture.
The top court said that after signing the merger agreement and notification of certain properties as the personal private properties of the Maharaja, only the perceived throne devolved according to the rule of primogeniture, but not the personal private properties of the ruler.
“Following the lapse of the British paramountcy and the signing of the agreement of merger, the Maharaja assumed the status of the ruler only for the namesake to succeed to the Gaddi and to enjoy certain privileges attached to it…,” the Supreme Court said.
It said the personal private properties declared by the ruler would devolve upon his successors in accordance with the Muslim/Hindu personal law, or in the present case, in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act and not by the rule of primogeniture.
The apex court said that of the disputed four immovable properties, three are in the joint names of the family members, and so they are liable to division between the joint holders.
"Lastly, the only immovable property which remains is the property at Mussoorie, i.e., Kapurthala Chateau and St Helens, Mussoorie, would devolve upon the successors under Hindu Law and are divisible amongst the family members."
