KR.ALARK SINGH Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was instituted on 13th October, 1987, wherein the plaintiff has claimed number of reliefs including a decree for declaration of his title to the suit properties, for partition and for rendition of accounts. On 28th May, 1993, nine preliminary issues were framed and the case was posted for the parties evidence on the said issues. In the meanwhile, some of the defendants applied for framing issues on merits also and for rejection of plaint as disclosing no cause of action. On 19th August, 1993, when the case was taken up for consideration on the applications, learned Counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 to 4, by making reference to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Revathinnal Balagopalaverma v. His Highness Sri Padmanabhadasavarma (since deceased) and others, 1991 (5) JT 301 and in His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh v Her Highness Maharani Sarojani Devi and others; Civil Appeal No 5857 of 1983, decided on 17th August, 1993 prayed that the effect of the said judgments on the maintainability of the suit be decided first, since according to them the basic and primary reliefs were liable to be rejected. The case was thereafter posted for hearing arguments to examine the effect of the two judgments on the maintainability of the suit. Arguments were heard on 9th September, 1993. The averments made in the plaint may now be noticed in detail.

(2.) It is the plaintiffs case that Maharaja Amar Parkash, the Ruler of erstwhile princely State of Sirmur was the holder of an impartible estate till his death, which took in the year 1933, when in accordance with the rule of primogeniture his son Maharaja Rajinder Parkash succeeded him as a ruler and inherited all the properties. With the emergence of independent India in 1947, paramountcy lapsed and the Sirmur State acceded to dominion of India on Instructment of Accession being executed by Maharaja Rajinder Parkash transferring the authority and power of governance and administration of Sirmur State to the dominion of India. Prior to the accession, Maharaja Rajinder Parkash was the absolute owner of the property under the custom of impartibility and primogeniture since he held the property as a Ruler of the State.

(4.) It is further alleged that succession in the dynesty of Sirmur State Rulers had always been governed under the rule of primogeniture and as a consequence the estate inherited by the succeeding Raj is remained impartible to the exclusion of all other members of the family till the custom of impartibility and primogeniture was abolished by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Under the scheme and custom of impartibility the estate inherited by the succeeding Rajas of Sirmur State could not be broken and only one person, namely, the Ruler enjoyed the same to the exclusion of the other members of the family, who were allowed, in lieu of maintenance only Jagirs. After giving the pedigree, the plaintiff has further alleged that vast moveable and immoveable property held by Maharaja Rajinder Parkash firstly as a Ruler and then, after merger of the State in dominion of India, on acceptance of the same as his personal properties, on the death of Maharaja Rajinder Parkash, devolved upon the surviving members of the coparcenary Immediately prior to the death, the coparcenary constituted of Maharaja Rajinder Parkash himself, his younger brother Major Birender Singh (the plaintiffs father) and Rajmata Madalsa Devi (the widowed mother of Maharaja Rajinder Parkash). They acquired one share each and on the death, share of Maharaja Rajinder Parkash was inherited in equal shares by his four heirs, namely, his widow Durga Devi, defendant No. 1, the two daughters Smt Nalini Devi, defendant No. 2 and Padmini Devi, defendant No. 3 and mother Rajmata Madalsa Devi.