USHA DEVI Vs. BHU ARJAN ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the trustees of the Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Educational Trust, Manik Bag, Indore (hereinafter called the Trust). According to the petitioners the Lal Bag Palace (hereinafter called the Palace) is one of the properties vested in the Trust. It comprises of an imposing palatial building, ancillary buildings, wells, trees and the land admeasuring 28.188 hectares on which it stands. It is within the municipal limits of Indore. Initially the palace belonged to the late Highness Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar, who was the Ruler of Indore. The Maharaja created a private trust in the name of his daughter Princess Usha Raje by a trust deed, known as Princess Usha Trust. However, at a later date Maharani Usha Devi and her children extinguished their entire interest in the vast properties of the Princess Usha Trust including the palace in question and transferred them to the petitioners Trust. As such according to the petitioners they are the legal owners of the palace as trustees of the public charitable trust.

(2.) The respondent No.2 Shri Malhar Rao Holkar who is a remote relative of Maharaja Yeshwantrao and Smt. Usha Devi, filed a suit on 1-12-1973 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Indore claiming an undtermined and unquantified share in the property mentioned in the suit including the palace. The suit was registered as civil original suit No.17 of 1973 and has now been renumbered as Civil Original Suit No.39 of 1986. The petitioners have pointed out the defects in the said suit, but we are not at present concerned with the merits of that suit.

(3.) According to the petitioners, initially Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar was in exclusive possession of the palace as an owner and after the creation of the Trust the trustees of the Princess Usha Trust and thereafter the trustess of Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Educational Trust were in peaceful, continuous and undisturbed possession of the palace and the land on which it stands. Their names were entered in the revenue records as bhumiswamis and in the Municipal records as owners. The petitioners and their predecessors have been spending considerable money on repairs, upkeep, watch and ward and maintenance of the palace. As such the petitioners and their predecessors have been in actual physical possession of the palace as the owners.