PRITAM KAUR Vs. STATE OF PEPSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the order of Bishan Narain J. passed in a petition under Article 226 of the constitution praying that the estate be released from the Court of Wards on the ground that Section5 (2) (a) of the Pepsu Court of Wards Act (No. 1 of 2008 Bk.)is ultra vires the Constitution of India. This appeal came up before me while sitting with the Chief Justice on the 13th of September, 1960, and it was ordered that it should be heard 'by a lager Bench. Consequently, this matter has been placed before the-Full Bench.

(2.) THE petitioner-appellant is one Smt. Pritam Kaur widow of Mukand Singh, who was murdered on the nth of April, 1928. Mukand Singh at the time of his death was possessed of considerable landed and house property. He left landed and other property in various villages in the erstwhile Jind State. He was survived on his death by two widows, that is, Smt. Pritara Kaur and Smt. Pavittar Kaur and three daughters from Smt. Pavittar Kaur. At the instance of Smt. Pavittar Kaur the judicial and Home Committee of the erstwhile State of Jind proposed on the ist of june, 1928, that the estate of Mukand Singh should be placed under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. This proposal was accepted by the Cabinet of that State vide its order dated the 5th of July, 1928, with the result that the estate of Mukand Singh was taken possession of by the Court of Wards Jind State. '

(3.) AFTER the independence of India, the Rulers of the various East Punjab States including the State of Jind entered into a covenant whereby these States formed themselves into a Union known as the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. In pursuance of this covenant. Ordinance No. 1 of 2005 Bk. (The Patiala and East punjab States Union Administration Ordinance, 2005 Bk.) was promulgated. Section 3 of this Ordinance reads thus :