Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

R.S.A No. 1720 of 1989

Judges

G.R Majithia, J.

Acts

section 80 C.P.C

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — G.R. Majithia, J. (Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1719 & 1720 of 1989)

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants (defendants) from taking forcible possession of two buildings in the Jallow Khana complex—identified as Haveli Baba Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Nihal Mehal—and the compound attached thereto. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction to compel the defendants to vacate and hand over a two-storey building at the northern end of the complex.

The plaintiff's case alleged that the Jallow Khana complex (situated in Kapurthala) included historic Havelis that were subject to a Shahi Farman (order) by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh dated 12-3-1925, which vested those Havelis in the heir apparent on rules of primogeniture. The plaintiff claimed continued exclusive possession of the Havelis and asserted that the two-storey building had been occupied by government offices as licensees; the plaintiff had terminated that licence and demanded possession.

The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and locus standi, asserted that the property belonged to the Government and had been in their possession since 1947, and challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court. They also relied on the fact that on merger of the Kapurthala State with PEPSU, the Ruler submitted a list of personal property that did not include the disputed property.

The trial court framed twelve issues, of which Issues Nos. 1–4 and 6–11 were decided in favour of the plaintiff, while Issue No. 3 (possession of two palaces / mandatory injunction) was decided against him. On first appeal the appellate court considered the Shahi Farman and the list of personal property at merger and concluded the property was the plaintiff's personal property; it dismissed the defendants' appeal and allowed the plaintiff's appeal on the mandatory injunction point. The State (defendants) filed these second appeals challenging the first appellate court's judgment and decree.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the property in dispute was owned by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh of the erstwhile State of Kapurthala and was the personal property of the Maharaja?
Whether the property in dispute had devolved upon Maharaja Paramjit Singh and after him upon the plaintiff?
Whether the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of two palaces, namely Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mehal of the Jallow Khana complex?
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for?
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the mandatory injunction?
Whether the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit?
Whether the property in dispute belonged to the Punjab Government?
Whether the present suit was barred by time (limitation)?
Whether the plaintiff was estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the present suit?
Whether this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?
What was the effect of non-service of notice under section 80 C.P.C. by the plaintiff upon the defendants before filing the present suit?
Relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's (Respondent's) Arguments

The historic Havelis (Baba Jassa Singh Haveli and Nihal Mehal) formed part of Jallow Khana and were vested by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in the heir apparent by a Shahi Farman dated 12-3-1925; the Farman required heirs to maintain their historic status.
The Havelis and compound remained in the plaintiff's exclusive possession (and were in dilapidated condition requiring renovation).
Some other buildings in the complex had been used by State offices as licensees (since c.1925); the plaintiff had terminated that licence and sought possession of the two-storey building.
The plaintiff asserted title and sought permanent and mandatory injunctions to protect and recover possession of the disputed portions.

Defendants' (Appellants' / State's) Arguments

The plaintiff lacked locus standi to maintain the suit.
The disputed buildings belonged to the Government and were maintained by the Public Works Department at State expense.
The defendants (or the State) had been in possession since 1947; the plaintiff's possession over any part of the disputed building was denied.
The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
When the princely State merged with PEPSU, the Ruler furnished a list of his private property and the Jallow Khana complex was not included; the omission justified an inference that it was not treated as the Ruler's personal property.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ammer un Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955 SC 352	The firmans / orders of a sovereign ruler (prior to integration and before Constitution) were expressions of sovereign will, had the force of law, and could override other laws; the ruler enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers as legislature, executive and judiciary.	The court relied on this precedent to support the proposition that the Maharaja's Shahi Farman (dated 12-3-1925) had the force of law in the Kapurthala State and thus could vest ownership rights in the heir apparent.
Pt Jayvant Rao v. Pt. Chandrakant Rao, 1970 1 SCC 702	An order by a ruler concerning a particular jagir or property could amount to law-making in respect of that jagir/property rather than a mere executive order; where the ruler exercised sovereign power to alter ownership incidents, the order had binding legal effect.	The court relied on this principle to conclude that the Shahi Farman was not a mere executive act but an exercise of sovereign law-making power that divested the ruler of ownership over the disputed property; therefore the property had ceased to be the ruler's personal property by 1925 and rightly was omitted from any later list of his personal property at merger.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified the central contention on second appeal as the State's submission that the disputed property was not the plaintiff's personal property because it was not included in the Ruler's list of personal property at the time of merger with PEPSU.

The court examined the Shahi Farman dated 12-3-1925 (Ex P-2) and its English translation, which expressly vested the historical Havelis of the Ahluwalia family (Baba Jassa Singh Haveli and Nihal Mehal forming part of Jallow Khana) in the heir apparent, to be kept in perpetuity for the family's historic status. The Farman stated that the ownership and possession of these buildings were to be considered separate from the Maharaja's other property and to always vest in every heir apparent.

The court analysed the legal status of such a Farman in light of constitutional transition. It held that, prior to integration and even after enforcement of the Constitution by virtue of Article 372, the Shahi Farman constituted the law of the State and continued to have force until repealed or replaced by competent legislation. The court emphasised that the Ruler of Kapurthala, as sovereign, combined legislative, executive and judicial powers, and his Farman could validly create or alter proprietary incidents.

The court relied on the cited precedents to establish that firmans or similar sovereign orders are binding and can operate as law in respect of particular properties. Applying these principles, the court concluded that by the Farman dated 12-3-1925 the Maharaja had vested the ownership rights in the heir apparent; consequently the Maharaja had divested himself of ownership of the disputed Havelis well before the merger with PEPSU. Because the Ruler was no longer the owner at the time of merger, he could not, and therefore did not, include those buildings in the list of his personal property submitted on merger.

The court thus found the State's reliance on non-inclusion in the merger list to infer that the property was not the Ruler's private property to be without merit. The first appellate court's conclusion that the property in dispute was the plaintiff's personal property was upheld.

Holding and Implications

Final Holding: The second appeals are APPEALS DISMISSED. The judgment dismisses the appeals and records that there is no order as to costs.

Direct Implications for the Parties:

The first appellate court's determination that the disputed property (the historic Havelis forming part of Jallow Khana) is the personal property of the plaintiff is affirmed by this court.
The State's challenge based on the property not being listed as private property at the time of merger is rejected because the Farman had divested the Ruler of ownership prior to merger.
The plaintiff's entitlement (as recognized by earlier courts) to the principal relief asserted in the suit is upheld; the appeal by the State does not succeed.

The opinion does not elaborate broader legal consequences beyond affirming the first appellate court's conclusions. Accordingly, the practical effect is the maintenance of the earlier decree in favour of the plaintiff; the court did not state that it was laying down a new general precedent beyond applying established principles (as reflected in the cited authorities) to the facts of this case.

Note: This summary is prepared solely from the text of the provided judgment excerpt and does not add facts or inferences beyond what the opinion itself states.

Show full summary ...

State Of Punjab And Another v. Brig Sukhjit Singh .

G.R Majithia, J.:— This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1719 and 1720 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein.

2. The facts:—

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellants from taking forcible possession of the two buildings in Jallow Khana complex known as Haveli Bala Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Nihal palace and the compound attached to it and a relief by way of a mandatory injunction was also claimed restraining the defendants from using the two storey building situated at northern end of the Jallow Khana complex and to vacate and hand over its possession to him. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that a big complex as Jallow Khana is situated at Kapurthala. It was constructed by Baba Jassa Singh founder of erstwhile Kapurthala State. Originally it was known as Haveli Baba Jassa Singh. Subsequently another Mehal was constructed near the original Haveli and the same was known as Nihal Mehal which was constructed by another ruler of Kapurthala State descendant of Baba Jassa Singh. The Jallow Khana comlex is situated on the western end of main Bazar, Kapurthala. Subsequently double storey building of large size were constructed on the southern side of the complex. The trial court recorded a note that these buildings fall on south-eastern side of the complex as is shown in the site plan Ex D-4 According to Ex D-4, the sides of the complex do not syncronize towards North, South, East and West. It is situated in a way that one side is towards south - east and the other towards south-west, third one is towards North west and the 4th one is towards northeast. Therefore, the buildings which are stated to be situated towards southern side in the plant are situated towards south-eastern side of the complex. Maharaja Jagatjit Singh was Ruler of erstwhile Kapurthala State on 28 Magh 1981 B.K On that day, he issued an order as a sovereign ruler of the State that Jallow Khana comlex shall have a special status and shall be inherited by heirs apparent to the thrown, according to rule of promigegiture which was followed by Rulers of Kapurthala State. It is further recited in the Farman that historical Haveli of Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mehal situated in Jallow Khana shall devolve upon the eldest son of Ahluwalia Dynasty who shall maintain its historic status and dignity intact to keep alive in perpetuity the rememberance of the Ahluwalia Misal. Ruler Maharaja Jagjit Singh was succeeded by Raja Paramjit Singh and the latter was succeeded by the plaintiff. By an order dated April 21, 1947 Maharaja Jagjit Singh had ordered that Jallow Khana complex and other portions of it had always been his personal property and shall remain as such. It was further pleaded that some offices of Kapurthala State were allowed to function in two storeyed building situated on the southern side of the complex (in fact south-eastern side). These offices are functioning in the buildings since the year 1925 or even prior to that. Kapurthala State merged with the Pepsu in 1948 and the Pepsu merged with Punjab in 1956. The buildings situated on the southern side of the complex continued to be occupied by government offices as licencee of the plaintiff. The other part of the Jallow Khana complex i.e Haveli of Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Palace and the compound attached therewith remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. These Havelis were alleged to be in dilapidated condition requiring renovation. The plaintiff terminated the licence regarding two storey building and asked the licensee to hand over the possession to the plaintiff.

3. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff inter alia pleading that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that the building in dispute belongs to the Government and is being maintained by Public Works Department at State expense; the building was in possession of the defendants since 1947; the possession of the plaintiff over any part of the building in dispute was denied; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also denied. It was farther pleaded that when the princely states merged with the Pepsu, the rulers of the States were required to declare their private property. The Rules of the Kapurthala State declared his private property and the disputed property, namely, Jallow Khana complex was not mentioned in the list of private property.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:—

(1) Whether the property in dispute was owned by Maharaja Jagatjit Singh of Erstwhile State of Kapurthala and was the personal property of the Maharaja? OPP

(2) Whether the properly in dispute had devolved upon Maharaja Paramjit Singh and after him upon the plaintiff? OPP

(3) Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of two palaces, namely Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mehal of the Jallow Khana Complex? OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for? OPP

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction? OPP

(6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPP

(7) Whether the property in dispute belongs to the Punjab Government? OPO

(8) Whether the present suit is based by time? OPD

(9) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

(10) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD

(11) What is the effect of non service of notice under section 80 C.P.C by the plaintiff upon the defendants before filing the present suit? OPD

(12) Relief.

5. Issues No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was partly decreed. Issue No. 3 was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that he was not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. The parties to the lis filed two separate appeals in the first appellate Court. The plaintiff challenged the finding of the trial judge to the extent in which it was held that he was not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial judge vide which the plaintiff's suit was decreed for the principal relief. The first Appellate Court after taking into consideration the order/Shabi Farman dated 12-3-1925 AD, Ex P-2, and the list of personal property filed by the Ruler of Kapurthala State on merger of the State with Pepsu came to the conclusion that the property in dispute was the personal property of the plaintiff and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. On these findings, the defendants' appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal againat the finding of the trial judge that he was not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction was allowed on the ground that the defendants were in possession as licensees and they had perfected their title by adverse possession and the plaintiff being the owner was entitled to recover possession from the defendants. The State has come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court.

6. The only point urged at the bar is that the property in suit is not the personal property of the plaintiff. The counsel for the appellants highlighted that on the merger of the Kapurthala State with Pepsu, its Ruler filed a list of his personal property and the property in dispute does not find mention in that list and non-inclusion of the property leads to an inference that he did not want to treat the property in suit as his personal property. The submission is devoid of merit. The Ruler of the Kapurthala State vide his order/Shahi Farman ordained that to perpetuate the traditions of Ahluwalia family the historic Havelis situated at Kapurthala, namely, Baba Jassa Singh Haveli and Nihal Mehal forming part of Jallow Khana would vest in the heir apparent who will keep the unique historic status of these buildings intact. The English translation of this document reads thus:—

“I, Jagatjit Singh, Maharaja of Kapurthala, have already gifted my property situate at Oudh (situate in States attached) to all of ray sons according to their respective shares. Thererafter it is hereby ordered that after me, Tikka Sahib Raja Paramjit Singh as heir apparent shall have the absolute right to my entire residue estate (other remaing property of each kind). This will be implemented accordingly. Each heir apparent, keeping in view the Ahluwalia traditions, will be owners in possession of the historical Havelis of Ahluwalia family, situate at Kapurthala, Baba Jassa Singh Haveli and Nihal Mehal forming part of Jallow Khana and will up keep their uniqe historical importance and respect so that the name of the Alhuwalia dynasty should shine for ever through these buildings. The ownership and possession of this building will be considered separate from my other property and shall always be deemed to vest in every heir apparent. Hence this writing has been prepared so that it may be used at the time of need Executed on Magh 28, Sambat 1981.”

7. The Farman of the Maharaja was the law of the State having the force of law Even after the enforcement of the Constitution by virtue of Article 372, it continued to be the law till it was repealed and substituted by law made by the competent Legislature. The Ruler was the overlord. He was the principal executive, also the principal Legislature and the principal judicial authority in the State. He inhihited all the three powers in him. He exercised his powers in view of his royal prerogative. The unification of powers in one person makes no differentiation between exercise of his several powers impossible. Under the order/Farman dated 12-3-1925 A.D the Ruler had already vested the ownership rights of the historic Havelis which were part of the Jallow Khana complex in the heir apparent to the thrown. The Ruler was the principal executive and in that capacity, he had passed the order vesting the property in the heir apparent. The Kapurthala State was a savereign State and the Ruler did not rescind the order vesting the property in dispute in the heir apparent. In this conception of the sovereign authority nothing done by a Ruler would be ultra vires. Reference can usefully be made to Ammer un Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum . AIR 1955 SC 352., where it was held thus:—

“Prior to the integration of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive, and there were no constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any of these capacities. The firmans were expressions of the sovereign will of the Nizam and they were binding in the same way as any other law; nay, they would override all other laws which were in conflict with them. So long as a particular firman held the field, that alone would govern or regulate the rights of the parties concerned, though it could be annulled or modified by a later Firman at any time that the Nizam willed”

8. The Shahi Pharman of the Maharaja had the force of law and it could be made even with regard to a particular property. Reliance can usefully be placed upon Pt Jayvant Rao v. Pt. Chandrakant Rao . 1970 1 SCC 702, where in somewhat similar circumstances it was laid down that the order passed by the ruler was in exercise of his powers of laying down the law with respect to a single Jagir end was not a mere executive order and further since the law applicable to Jagir was changed for future, such order could only be made in exercise of his prerogative of laying down the law for that particular Jagir specially when there was nothing to indicate that there was any recognised procedure of law making in that State. The Ruler exercising sovereign power has divested himself of the ownership of the property in dispute under Shahi Farman, dated 12-3-1925 A.D He was not the owner of the property at the time of the merger of the Kapurtbala State with Pepsu. In the list of his personal property, declared on the merger of the Kapurthala State with Pepsu, he did not include the property in dispute as his personal property since it had ceased to be so in the year 1925. The Ruler was only to furnish a list of his personal property. He could not include those propeities in that list of which he was not the owner. Much capital cannot be made for non inclusion of the property in dispute in that list of personal property for the reason that the property in dispute had ceased to be the personal property of the Ruler after the issuance of the order. No fault can be found with the conclusions arrived at by the first Appellate Court that the property in dispute is the personal property of the plaintiff. No other point was urged.

9. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

R.M.S

Appeal dismissed.

State Of Punjab And Another v. Brig Sukhjit Singh .

Judgment Summary — G.R. Majithia, J. (Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1719 & 1720 of 1989)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's (Respondent's) Arguments

Defendants' (Appellants' / State's) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Punjab And Another v. Brig Sukhjit Singh .

Comments