RAJMATA VIJAYA RAJE SCINDIA GWALIOR Vs. JYOTIRADITYA SCINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall dispose of two inter linked matters, heard analogously. Both matters arise out of a common order passed on 16-10-1990 in Civil Suit No. 9A of 1990, by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior. By that order, he disposed of simultaneously the application of plaintiff Jyotiraditya Scindia for temporary injunction and the application of the appellant/revisionist, Shrimant Vijaya Raje Scindia, impleaded in the suit as defendant No. l, for rejection of the plaint. He held that the plaintiffs suit and his application for temporary injunction could not be thrown out at the threshold and that no case was made out to do so under O. VII, Rr. 5, 7 and 11 read with S. 151, C.P.C. In deciding the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, he found a prima facie case made out and held that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff who would suffer irreparable injury if defendant No. 1 was not restrained from alienating, transferring and parting with possession of any of the properties in dispute.

(2.) Shortly put, the plaintiff's case is that the suit property was ancestral property. The relationship of parties and other members of the family is reflected in the genealogical tree pictured at para 2 of the plaint. Plaintiff's father, defendant No. 2, Madhav Rao Scindia is the only son of late Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Vijaya Raje Scindia (defendant No. 1). He was born on 9-3-1945. Plaintiff was born on 1-1-1971 and he is also the only male child of his parents. Plaintiff's grandfather Late Maharaja Jiwaji Rao was enthroned on 2-11-1936 and became Ruler of erstwhile princely State of Gwalior. On 28-5-1948, there was a merger of certain princely States of Central India leading to the formation of United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malva (Madhya Bharat) when a convenant was executed by the Rulers of the concerned States setting out the terms and conditions of their accession to independent India. Maharaja Jiwaji Rao Scindia expired on 19-7-61. Before his death he filed his Wealth Tax return as an "Individual", for the year 1960-61, declaring therein his assets. During his life-time, he had created four separate trusts on 11-6-1947, 12-1-1948, 26-3-1954 and 15-6-1955, investing Rs. 5 lakhs in each trust for the benefit of each of his four daughters for enjoyment by them on their attaining majority the accumulated income. On 11-11-1955, he had executed a gift-deed donating to his daughter Yashodhara Raje the property known as Sakhya Vilas, Lashkar, Gwalior. On 12-7-1962, under a certificate issued by the Government of India defendant No. 2 was recognised in terms of Art. 366(22) of the Constitution of India as the Ruler of Gwalior in succession to his father late Jiwaji Rao Scindia with effect from 19-7-1961 as the "sole successor of all private properties, movable, immovable", held by the deceased Maharaja.

(3.) The crux of the plaintiff's case is that whatever properties devolved by succession on his father, defendant No. 2, was governed by Rule of Primogeniture and the estate which his father inherited was impartible. Therefore, the Partition Deeds (Annexures P/XII and P/XVIII) executed on 31-12-1971 and 31-5-1976 and the Trust Deeds (Annexures P/XIII to P/XXVIII) executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were void, as they related to property of the said estate. The several trusts are impleaded in the suit as defendants 3 to 17. The properties shown in Annexures C, D, E and the properties held in the name of M/s. Scindia Potteries (Pvt.) Ltd. (impleaded as defendant No. 20) and of Kusumpur Clay Mine, Ltd. (impleaded as defendant No. 21) are described as "disputed properties". It is stated that the shares of the Company (defendant No. 21) were owned by late Jiwaji Rao Scindia and that he was the lease-holder of the properties held in the name of defendant No. 21. According to the plaintiff, so-called partitions were engineered by the appellant/defendant No. 1 who prevailed upon her son, defendant No. 2 to show the properties as belonging to Hindu undivided family because she would not have otherwise got anything except maintenance. His further case is that a simulated dispute was raised with respect to some of the properties and decision thereof was procured under award dated 1-4-1980 of a Sole Arbitrator. The cause of action for the suit arose as a result of different illegal transactions taking place during plaintiff's minority and that the suit was filed within three years of his attaining majority and acquiring knowledge thereof.