STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab, are directed against a common judgment of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, passed in Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1719 and 1720 of 1989 and are limited in scope to the determination of title to a double storeyed building situated in a complex known as Jallokhana in the town of Kapurthala. These appeals have arisen in the following manner.

(2.) The respondent herein is Brigadier Sukhjit Singh. He is the son of Maharaja Paramjit Singh and the grand son of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh in the order of primogeniture succession. The ancestory of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh is traced to Baba Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the founder of Kapurthala State and the Ahluwalia dynasty. It is common ground that there is a complex known as Jallokhana at Kapurthala which encompasses two historic havelis, which in the context mean palaces, going by the names Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal. Besides these two havelis, there are open spaces and other structures in the complex and the disputed one is a double storeyed building presently in the occupation of State of Punjab through its Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent claiming that since the possession of the State of Punjab thereon was permissive in character and in the nature of a licence, and despite his terminating the same the State of Punjab had not vacated the disputed building, he sought relief by way of a suit for mandatory injunction requiring the State of Punjab to vacate the premises, and to keep its hands off from the other properties in the complex over which the plaintiff-respondent was owner in possession.

(3.) The State of Punjab on the other hand disputed the ownership of the plaintiff to the Jallokhana complex and claimed that the building in dispute belonged to the government and was being maintained by the Public Works Department at State expense since 1947. The possession of plaitiff towards any part of the buildings was denied. It was pleaded that when the princely States in this part of the country merged with the State known as the Patiala and East Punjab State Unions (PEPSU, the rulers of the merging States were required to declare their private properties, but the ruler of Kapurthala State, however, while declaring his private properties, did not enlist the Jallowkhana complex as part of his private properties. On that analysis it was claimed that the entire Jallowkhana complex was owned by the State.