raj kumari amrit kaur latest jugment 2013

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 1

In the court of Rajnish K. Sharma,Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Chandigarh

Civil Suit-I

Computer Id No. 040101014802005Civil Suit No. 473/23-7-2010

Date of Institution : 15-10-1992Date of decision : 25-7-2013

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur daughter of Raja Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur, wife of Sh. Harpal Singh, R/o 258, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

---------- Plaintiff

Versus

1. Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta.

2. Rajkumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja Sadey

Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta.

3. Maharawal Khewaji Trust through its Board of Trustees:

(1) Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey

Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur,

Kolkatta.

(2) Raj Kumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja

Sadey Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur,

Kolkatta.

(3) Lalit Mohan Gupta son of Sh. Bimal Kumar Gupta,

r/o Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot.

(4) Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

Advisor, Clock Tower Street, Faridkot.

(5) S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal, Street no.5,

Balbir Basti, Faridkot.

(6) Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of Sardar Bahadur

Kartar Singh, Mehmuiana, House No.1, Clock

Tower Street, Faridkot.


(7) Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh.

(8) Dr. P.S.Sandhu son of S.Shamsher Singh Sandhu,

r/o Medical Campus, Faridkot.

4. M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Bombay through its manager.

5. Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (now deceased) son of

Maharaja Brijinder Singh through LRs

(i) Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh, R/o Council House, Faridkot.

(ii) Raj Kumari Dev Inder Kaur daughter of late

Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh through LR Raj Kumari

Heminder Kaur daughter of Raj Kumari Dev Inder

Kaur , r/o 758, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

------------ Defendants

Suit for Declaration and Injunction.

Present: Sh. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurveen H. Singh counsel for plaintiff. Sh. Ranjit Singh Wahniwal, Sh. R.K. Mittal and Sh. P.S.Sandhu, Sh. Vinod K. Katari and Sh. Mukesh Mittal, counsel for defendants respectively. Defendant no.4 already exparte. Sh. GK Verma counsel for defendant no.5(i) .

Civil Suit -II

Computer Id No. 040101000151992Civil Suit No. 4193/21-8-2010Date of Institution : 4-4-1992

Date of decision : 25-7-2013

Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh son of Maharaja Major Brij Inder Singh, R/O Faridkot (deceased) through its following legal heirs and representatives:-

1. Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh r/o Council House, Faridkot, Punjab.


2. Raj Kumari Dev Inder Kaur d/o late Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, r/o House No.309, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

---------- Plaintiffs

Versus

1. Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta,

proclaiming herself to be the Chairman of the Trust.

2. Rajkumari Mahdeep Inder Kaur d/o late Raja Harinder

Singh, 13, Nandan Apartments, Fateh Sultan Lane,

Nampally, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, proclaiming

himself to be the Vice-Chairman of the Trust.

3. Shri Umrao Singh son of Sh. Bishan Singh, near the Fort

(Mahikhana) Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be the

Chief Executive Officer of the Trust.

4. Sh. Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

Adviser, Clock Tower, Street, Faridkot, proclaiming

himself to be the Chief Legal Adviser of the Trust.

5. Sh. Lal Singh son of Sh. Bhole Singh, Street no.5, Balbir

Basti, Faridkot proclaiming himself to be the Head

Agriculture Officer of the Trust.

6. Sh. S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal,Street No.5,

Balbir Basti, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be Legal

Adviser of the Trust.

7. Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of S.Bahadur Kartar Singh,

Mehmuiana House No.1, Clock Tower Street, Faridkot

proclaiming himself to be the Member of the Trust.

8. Sh. Harbans Singh s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh, Gali No.6,

Doggar Basti, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be

member of the Trust.

9. Sh. Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh,

proclaiming himself to be the Member of the Trust.

10. Sh. Jagir Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh, Bir Bholuwara

Tehsil, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be the Member of


the Trust.

11. M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Head Office, Bombay.

12. Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu, Faridkot.

13. Meharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot.

14. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (added as defendant vide order

dated 26-7-1994).

------------ Defendants

Suit for Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Mandatory injunction.

Present: Sh. G.K.Verma, counsel for plaintiff. Sh. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurveen H. Singh counsel for defendant no.14. Sh.R.K. Mittal counsel for remaining defendants.

JUDGEMENT

1. This judgment disposes of (1) Civil Suit No.473/23-7-

2010/15-10-1992, titled as Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs

Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others and (2) Civil Suit

no.4193/21-8-2010/4-4-1992, titled as Kanwar Manjit

Inder Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others.

2. Facts of the civil suit titled as 'Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs

Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others' as unfolded in

pleadings are as under:-

3. The plaintiff has pleaded that Raja Harinder Singh Brar

Bans Bahadur son of Maharaja Brij Inder Singh was the

father of the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2. He was

the erstwhile ruler of Faridkot State. The plaintiff and


defendants no.1 and 2 are the daughters of late Raja

Harinder Singh who died on 16-10-1989 leaving behind

the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 as his only legal

heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. Raja Harinder

Singh had only one son namely Tikka Harmohinder

Singh who died on 13-10-1981 and thus he predeceased

his father Raja Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur.

Mother of plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. the wife

of Raja Harinder Singh died during the life time of Raja

Harinder Singh. She was, however, alive on 1-6-1982 on

which date Raja Harinder Singh is purported to have

executed the alleged Will. After independence of the

country, various princely State were merged into the

Indian Union. Like others, Raja Harinder Singh, ruler of

erstwhile Faridkot State entered into a covenant with the

rulers of erstwhile State of East Punjab with the

concurrence of the Government of India. As a result of

the covenant, Patiala and East Punjab States Union came

into existence which was popularly known as PEPSU.

Rulers of the covenanting States were declared to be

entitled to enjoy the title, ownership rights, use and

enjoyment of all the properties declared by him, kept as

distinct properties from the State properties inherited by

him from his ancestors. The properties belonging to his

ancestors claimed by him as belonging to him on the date


of his making over the administration of the State to the

Raj Pramukh, he was the holder of title of ownership, use

and enjoyment of the property as a member of joint

Hindu Family property as well as co-parcener property.

According to the covenant, every ruler was required to

furnish list of Hindu Undivided Family, Joint Hindu

Family and the private properties of his family in his own

name. Raja Harinder Singh accordingly submitted a list

of his properties which was accepted by the Union

Government. It may be mentioned here that the above

referred properties were treated to be the ancestral as

well as private individual properties subject to the law of

inheritance under the law of the land i.e. Hindu

Succession Act. Inheritance of such properties can not

govern by the Rule of Primogeniture. At the most such

rule could apply to the Gaddi and State properties and

not to the properties of Raja as detailed in the suit.

Moreover, rule of the primogeniture is a feudal law and it

is violative not only of the Constitution of India but also

of the Hindu Succession Act. It violates Articles 14, 16

and 19 of the Constitution of India and it is

discriminatory because it excludes females in the matter

of inheritance. Since the properties in dispute are Joint

Hindu and the ancestral properties, therefore, the

plaintiff is entitled to succeed to those properties


alongwith defendants no.1 and 2 after the death of Raja

Harinder Singh Brar. He had no right to alienate such

ancestral / joint Hindu property by way of alleged Will or

otherwise. In alternative and without prejudice to the

foregoing and assuming without admitting that

primogeniture is applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to

succeed to the entire estate of her father Raja Harinder

Singh even assuming without admitting that it is

impartible, since she is the eldest surviving child and

there are no males who take priority to her under the

rules of lineal primogeniture. In the alternative and

without prejudice to the foregoing and assuming without

admitting that the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, 1948

(Act V of 1948 which received His Highness the Raja's

assent on 18th August 1948) is applicable, the plaintiff is

entitled to the entire estate of the Raja under section 4,

sub section 3 of the said enactment whereby the plaintiff

is the Raja's legitimate descendant. In any event and

without prejudice to the foregoing, the plaintiff is entitled

to 1/3rd share in the Estate of her father as prayed, as the

plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are the nearest

agnates contemplated by the said Act. List and details of

the properties which are joint Hindu family, ancestral/

co-parcener and private properties of late Raja Harinder

Singh with respect to which he had no right to alienate in


any manner except for the maintenance of the corpus of

the Joint Hindu Family, was given.

4. It has been averred that Raja Harinder Singh was a

Hindu Brar Jat and was governed by the Hindu

Succession Act which had abrogated the custom after the

said Act came into force. Raja Harinder Singh died on 16-

10-1989. The plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2

inherited the property in dispute in equal shares

according to the Hindu Succession Act and as such the

plaintiff became the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in

these properties. The defendants no.1 to 3 had no right,

title or interest in the said properties, but they have set

up the alleged Will which they are alleging to have been

executed by late Raja Harinder Singh on 1-6-1982. Said

alleged Will is factitious and is a forged and fabricated

document. It does not vest any right, title or interest in

any body nor can it divest the plaintiff and defendants

no.1 and 2 of the properties. The alleged Will is

surrounded by suspicious circumstances, therefore,

inheritance to the properties left by Raja Harinder Singh

would be governed under section 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act under which the plaintiff and defendants

no.1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of late Raja Harinder

Singh to succeed the properties left by him. If it is taken

that Raja Harinder Singh was governed by the Customary


Law (though not admitted) even under the custom

prevalent among the agriculturists of Punjab, the

ancestral property could not be alienated by way of

alleged Will or otherwise. The property in dispute had all

alongwith been treated as Joint Hindu Family in the

hands of Raja Harinder Singh and which had been

inherited from his ancestors. No part of this property was

self acquired property of Raja Harinder Singh. He

inherited the property when he accepted the accession to

the country. In the alternative the deceased was a Hindu

and the properties were Joint Hindu Family, co-parcener

properties and were incapable of alienation by the Karta

by way of alleged Will or otherwise. The alleged Will

dated 1-6-1982 set up by the defendants, is forged,

fictitious and fabricated and does not inspire confidence

and its execution is full of suspicious circumstances. It is

most unnatural that the plaintiff is the eldest daughter of

Raja Harinder Singh and her mother the Rani, who was

alive at the time of the execution of the alleged Will, were

almost left out of the bequest or were most meagerly

provided for as compared to the wealth and quantum of

properties mentioned in the alleged Will and Maharani

Maninder Kaur, mother of Raja Harinder Singh who was

alive at the time of execution of the alleged Will was

completely ignored and denied any share or position in


the Trust just life the wife and eldest daughter. No

provision has been made in the alleged Will for the

dependents of the deceased suitable to their status and

the life which they have led and supported him

throughout his life. The alleged Will is result of

misrepresentation, undue influence played on Raja

Harinder Singh and was not voluntarily made by late

Raja Harinder Singh.

5. It has been averred that Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar,

Advocate is one of the attesting witnesses. He particularly

exercised undue influence upon the Raja and this is clear

from the fact that Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh himself is the

beneficiary under the alleged Will. After death of his only

son Tikka Harmohinder Singh on 13-10-1981, Raja

Harinder Singh used to remain depressed all the time. He

was mentally upset on account of death of his only son

which took place about 8 months before the execution of

alleged Will. Because of death of his son, Raja Harinder

Singh was continuously living in the state of depression,

was imbalanced and became dependent only on coterie

around him which capitalized on vulnerability of the Raja

and exercised undue influence upon him by making

misrepresentations and fraud was played by the said

coteries on late Raja Harinder Singh. The alleged Will is

therefore null and void. It is clear that space for date in


the alleged Will was kept blank and was subsequently

filled in with pen whereas whole of the remaining alleged

Will is duly typed. No reasons were given in the alleged

Will by the testator for excluding the plaintiff, her mother

and her grand mother. By way of alleged Will Raja

Harinder Singh Brar is purported to have been created a

Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji Trust to be managed

by the trustees as indicated above and mentioned in the

alleged Will. Creation of such Trust is illegal under

sections 4,5 and 6 of the Indian Trust Act. As per the

alleged Will, a Trust in perpetuity has been created which

is void, ab-initio and it is not permissible in law. The

dominant purpose of the alleged Trust is to look after the

old and decadent building and other movable properties

of deceased Raja Harinder Singh. There is no provision as

to how the surplus income is to be utilized. The trust

created is vague and indefinite and carries inherent

defects and cumbersome procedures for its execution. It

is thus void. Raja Harinder Singh could not create any

Trust in respect to the Joint Hindu Family/ ancestral

property inherited by him from his ancestors and on that

account also the creation of the Trust is illegal. The

plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are the only legal

heirs of the deceased Raja Harinder Singh and are

entitled to inherit the movable and immovable properties


left by him to the extent of 1/3rd share of the properties.

The plaintiff requested the defendants several times to

admit her rights in the property in dispute but the

defendants have refused to accede her request on the

basis of forged and fabricated Will. Hence, the present

suit has been filed.

6. In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, the

defendants no.1,2,3 (1,2,3,5,7) and 5 filed their joint

written statement wherein they took legal objections

interalia, to the effect that Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh,

younger brother of late Colonel Sir Harinder Singh Brar

Bans Bahadur KCSI of Faridkot has also staked claim to

the succession to the estate of the deceased and has filed

civil suit no.75 of 1-4-1992 titled as Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur Sahiba and others

in respect of suit property which is pending in the Court

and he is therefore necessary party to the present suit;

that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose

of Court fee and jurisdiction. In the plaint, the plaintiff

has clearly claimed relief of joint possession to the extent

of 1/3rd share of suit property and the plaintiff has affixed

value of suit property grossly and ridiculously at a low

value of Rs.130/- only and has affixed a paltry court fee of

Rs.19.50 paise only, whereas market value of the property

runs into billions of rupees. Market value of the following


properties has been estimated by the District Valuation

Officer, New Delhi and Chandigarh appointed by the

Government of India u/s 16-A of the Wealth Tax Act 1957

as under:-

Sr. No.

Name of Property Valuation date as on 12-4-84

Valuation to be increased by 10%

every year1. Faridkot House, Copernics

Marg, New Delhi3,25,12,000/- 6,96,92,359/-

2. Faridkot House 35/48, Diplomatic Enclave 1-Naya Marg, New Delhi

99,93,000/- 21,42,088/-

3 Okhla Industrial Plot 7,05,000/- 16,62,585/-4. Mashobra House 18,91,700/- 40,55,027/-5. Riviera Apartment, The

Mall, Delhi4,22,000/- 9,04,595/-

6. Hotel Plot,Chandigarh 50,55,200/- 1,08,36,266/-7. Raj Mahal, Faridkot as on

12-4-8131,14,374/- 88,85,672/-

8. Qila Mubarik, Faridkot as on 12-4-82

38,22,400/- 99,14,321/-

In addition, the fair market value of the following

properties on the date of suit is as under:-

1. Stables, Faridkot in an area of Rs.30,00,000/-

about 4 acres

2. Surajgarh Fort, Mani Majra Rs.2,00,00,000/-

(in an area of about 5 acres)

Market value of the movable properties of which

possession has been claimed in the heading of the plaint

would also run into billion of rupees. Deficiency in court

fee should be made good from the plaintiff; that the suit

is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Khasra


No.43/6 measuring 31K 15 M situated in the area of

village Kaimbwala, UT is in possession of UT

Administration, Chandigarh which is necessary party to

the suit. Similarly, remaining land in revenue estate

Kaimbawala (except 12 K of land comprising of Rect.

No.27 Killa No.24/2/2 and Killa No.25) is also in

possession of Forest Department, UT, Chandigarh. Its

possession was taken by the said department under the

Chose Act and has been afforested as a measure of soil

conservation, therefore, forest department of UT,

Chandigarh is necessary party to the suit. Further, as

regards the land of village Mauli Jagran measuring 13K 1

M it is recorded as Shamlat Deh under Gram Panchayat

or member of village proprietary body who are necessary

parties to the suit. In Ballabgarh Revenue Estate, Khasra

No.156,157 and 158 are recorded in the revenue record in

possession of District Board/ Zila Parisad and PWD

Department of Haryana Government in whose absence

suit can not proceed. A part of Khasra No.158 measuring

1K 15M in the revenue estate of Ballabgarh stands sold.

Its vendees are in possession of the said land who are

necessary parties to the suit. Suit qua this land is not

maintainable in their absence. Khasra No.133 of revenue

Estate Ballabgarh is also in possession of Pujari of

Mandir Sh. Mool Chand and his descendants as is clear


from the Jamabandi entries and they are also necessary

party to the suit. In revenue estate Dhana bulk of the land

was declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land

Tenures Act 1953 vide order of Special Collector dated 1-

5-1979 and the Haryana Government has taken

possession of these lands and ejectable tenants were

settled who are in possession of the land. Haryana State

and tenants are necessary parties to the suit; that one of

the original trustees namely S. Niranjan Singh, Treasury

and Accounts Officer, H.H. Personnel Estates has

unfortunately passed away on 15-1-1992 due to heart

failure and in accordance with the terms and conditions

of the Constitution of the Trust, the Board and Trustees

have appointed Lt. Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu son of S.Tota

Singh, R/o village Qila Nau, Tehsil and District Faridkot

as Trustee in place of late S.Niranjan Singh vide

resolution no.55 dated 13-4-1992. Lt. Mukhtiar Singh

Sandhu has accepted the appointment and has taken over

as Trustee. He is necessary party to the suit. His non

joinder is fatal to the suit; that full description and

particulars as required by Order 7 Rule 3 CPC in respect

of the immovable properties which are the subject matter

of the present suit, have not been given in the plaint. No

site plan of any of the building has been filed with the

plaint. The description given is vague and incomplete;


that no particulars and identifiable description of

movable properties, vehicles, agriculture machinery,

jewellery and other articles has been given in the plaint;

that the property known as Fairy Cottage (Country Club)

situated in Bir Chahal, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Flat

No.32, Riviera Apartment, The Mall, Delhi and one

another property stand vested in a declaratory Trust

known as Faridkot Ruling Family Housing Trust

created by late owner Colonel Sir Harinder Singh Brar

Bans Bahadur KCSI. Beneficiaries of this Trust are all the

three daughters of the Settler. Said properties are in

possession of the beneficiaries. Therefore, present suit is

not maintainable qua the same. Aforesaid Trust is

necessary party. These properties ceased to be the

ownership of the testator; that a part of screw factory

area is in possession of Faridkot District Red Cross

Society who has built over there Amar Ashram. District

Red Cross Society, Faridkot is, therefore, necessary party;

that in revenue estate of Mashobra, 87 Bighas 8 Biswas of

land comprising of Khasra No.37/1/50,52,60/2, 65/1 77

has been declared surplus by the Collector, Agrarian

Himachal Pradesh vide his order dated 28-4-1985 and

appeal against the said order was dismissed by

Commissioner Shimla Division vide order dated 5-11-90.

Revision Petition has also been dismissed by Financial


Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. Possession has been

taken over as per Rapt. Roznamcha No.439 dated 24-7-

1991. Himachal Pradesh State is therefore, necessary

party to the suit; that members of the Board of trustees of

Maharawal Khewaji Trust should have been impleaded

personally; that civil court at Chandigarh has no

territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the

plaintiffs claim primarily is founded upon suit property

being ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu Family

property of which testator is alleged to be not capable of

making the Will. The property within UT Chandigarh

referred to in the plaint do not fall within the scope of

present suit. Following properties within the UT

Chandigarh are included in the suit: -

(i) Agriculture land at village Kaimbwala.

(ii) Agriculture land at village Mauli Jagran.

(iii) Agriculture land at village Mani Majra.

(iv) Constructed Fort known as Surajgarh Fort, Mani

Majra.

(v) Hotel Site No.12, sector 17, Chandigarh.

7. As regards properties no.(i) to (iv), these were gifted to

Raja Harinder Singh by his grand mother Rani Suraj

Kaur vide registration Gift Deed dated 18-2-1937

alongwith other landed and immovable property

mentioned in the Gift Deed. Rani Suraj Kaur inherited


the same from her mother Shabdit Kaur which the later

inherited from her husband Raja Bhagwan Singh about

which mutation no.207 dated 30-5-1937 was sanctioned

relating to the estate of village Kaimbwala and mutation

no.768 dated 31-5-1937 relating to revenue estate of

village Mani Majra. This inheritance was duly recorded

and sanctioned vide mutation no.207 dated 30-5-1937.

As regards, hotel site, sector 17D, Chandigarh having an

area of 13198.77 Sq. Yds. it was purchased by the Testator

Late Colonel Harinder Singh Brar in an open auction held

on 27-9-1970 as commercial site for Rs.13,40,000/- as is

clear from sale letter dated 5-11-1970 issued by the Estate

Officer, Chandigarh Administration, UT, Chandigarh. All

the installments were paid by the testator in his own life

time. Thus, it was undisputedly his self acquired

property. None of the above properties could form the

subject matter of this suit. None of them can even

remotely be claimed by the plaintiff to be ancestral

properties qua him what to talk their successor being

governed by Hindu Law. Since in the above

circumstances, none of the properties mentioned in the

suit to which even a claim could be staked by the plaintiff

as ancestral properties of Raja Harinder Singh is located

within jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this court has

no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Board of trustees of


Maharwal Khewaji Trust created by the impugned Will

comprising of defendant no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late S.

Niranjan Singh after demise of late Colonel Harinder

Singh, had taken over possession, control, management

of the estate of the deceased with the assent of the

Executors appointed under the said Will, therefore,

defendants no.3 (4,6 and 9) are not necessary parties.

Similarly, defendants no.3(8 and 10) are not necessary

parties; that claim for additional declaration and reliefs

as sought in the amended plaint purporting to be dated

18-11-1993 are not within time. Col. Sir Harinder Singh,

ruler of former Faridkot State had passed away on 16-10-

1989. Maharwali Khewaji Trust comprising of defendant

no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late S. Niranjan Singh as members of

the Board of Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust,

Faridkot constituted by registered Will dated 1-6-1982

had taken over possession, management and control of

the entire estate of the deceased on demise of the testator

and since then they are in its actual and physical

possession and are administering the Trust according to

the directions in the Will as is clear from Resolution No.1

dated 20-10-1989 and other resolutions. Claim for

additional declaration and reliefs as made in the

amended plaint, therefore, are not within time and are

liable to be dismissed; that the plaintiff is not entitled to


sue the trustees of Maharawal Khewaji Trust personally

for accounts. The plaintiff has no right to claim accounts

from them. Trustees are bound to execute the Trust in

accordance with directions given in the Will. The plaintiff

is not entitled to claim any accounts from the answering

defendants; that the defendants no.3 (4,6,9) as per terms

and conditions of the Will dated 1-6-1982 are only

executors and not trustees; that suit has not been

properly valued for the purpose of court fee and

jurisdiction for the relief of rendition of accounts. In the

amended plaint, alternative relief of plaintiff being

exclusive owner of the suit property is made and

consequential relief as may be necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the case and ends of justice has been

made. The plaintiff admittedly is not in possession of the

suit property. In the amended plaint, she seeks

declaration to be deemed possession alongwith

defendants no.1 and 2. However, for seeking alternative

relief of exclusive ownership on the basis of alleged rule

of primogeniture as under the alleged Raja Faridkot State

Act 1948, the plaintiff is to value her suit for the purpose

of court fee and jurisdiction for consequential relief

flowing from the above declaration. If the plaintiff claims

to be an exclusive owner and admittedly she is not in

possession, then she is required to pay advalorem court


fee on the market value of the suit properties for claiming

consequential relief; that in the original plaint, the

plaintiff had sought the declaration that she is owner of

1/3rd share of the suit properties and she claimed the

relief of possession, for which also the suit is not properly

valued. The defendants no.1 and 2 admittedly and jointly,

after demise of the testator, have not entered into

possession of any part of the estate of the deceased in

their capacity as natural heirs and the defendants no.1

and 2 have never staked any claim to the succession of

the estate of the deceased as natural heirs after demise of

the testator and on the contrary, they accepted the Will

and also accepted the offices with which they were

invested by the Will as is clear from Resolution no.1 dated

20-10-1989 and other resolutions of the Board of the

Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust. The answering

defendants as Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust have

taken over possession, control and management of entire

estate of the deceased and are in actual physical

possession of the property in dispute in their capacity as

Trustees. Agriculture lands situated in different revenue

estates have already been mutated in the name of Board

of Trustees. In the revenue record of all the revenue

estates, Maharwal Khewaji Trust is recorded in

possession of the said properties possession of which has


been sought in the present suit. All urban immovable

properties situated at Faridkot, Mashobra etc. have also

been mutated in the name of Trust and Trust is recorded

in its possession through its Trustees. The plaintiff being

admittedly out of possession and defendants no.1 and 2

being not in actual possession of any part of the suit

property, the plaintiff therefore, is not entitled to be

declared to be in deemed possession. The plaintiff being

admittedly out of possession, therefore, suit for bare

declaration is not maintainable without seeking relief of

possession. The suit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed

as a person can not seek declaration simplester as per the

provisions of section 34 of Specific Relief Act without

claiming further relief to which he is entitled.

8. On merits, the defendants broadly denied all the

averments of the plaint and they pleaded that Will in

question is valid and legal document in the eyes of law.

They admitted that wife of Colonel Harinder Singh Brar,

Rani Narinder Kaur Sahiba passed away on 19-4-1986,

though she was alive on 1-6-1982 yet she was living

separately and getting fixed monthly sum as maintenance

from her husband much prior to 1-6-1982 and

subsequent thereto till her life. Sir Harinder Singh Brar

was the erstwhile Maharaja of Faridkot State and he was

its sovereign ruler. Faridkot ceased to be a sovereign


princely State and Col. Harinder Singh ceased to be its

sovereign ruler in 1949 when the State of Faridkot

alongwith seven other princely states namely Patiala,

Kapurthala, Nabha, Malerkotla, Jind Nalagarh and Kalsia

were integrated to form the Patiala and East Punjab

States Union commonly known as PEPSU which on

coming into force of the Constitution on January 26th

1950 became a part of Union of India. Later, on re-

organization of the States by the States Reorganization

Act 1956, the entity of PEPSU also ceased as its territories

were merged in the Punjab. It is, however, worth noting

that although Faridkot was a sovereign State when the

British occupied the Punjab, the State came under the

paramountcy of the British Crown which was

acknowledged as the Suzerain Power. However, on India

attaining independence by the Act of British Parliament

namely the Indian Independence Act, 1947 the suzerainty

of the British Crown over Faridkot State as in the case of

other princely States, lapsed by virtue of S.7 of the said

Act and Faridkot became a complete sovereign state once

again.

9. The defendants further averred that the Rule of

Primogeniture was never applied to Faridkot State. In

fact, no female especially married one could succeed

under the alleged Rule of Primogeniture. After marriage a


Hindu female becomes member of her husband's family

and ceases to be member of her paternal family. Estate

left by deceased was not impartible as mentioned. Sir

Harinder Singh Brar was its absolute owner. It was his

personal property and provisions of Hindu Succession

Act governed the succession to the estate. The plaintiff is

not competent or eligible to succeed under the alleged

Rule of Primogeniture or to the alleged impartible estate.

After enactment of Hindu Succession Act, provisions of

Hindu Succession Act govern succession. All other Acts

and Rules of succession stand repealed. In fact, the

plaintiff is not legal heir to the estate of the deceased.

Moreover, the deceased had, by registered Will dated 1-6-

1982, bequeathed his entire estate including the suit

property in favour of defendant no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late

Sh. Niranjan Singh. Alleged Raja of Faridkot Estate Act

1948 (Act No.5 of 1948) was never enacted during the

existence of Faridkot State. Defendants were never

treated as agnate of the last owner, but were only

cognates. Testator was having every right to alienate the

suit property through Will. The properties were his

personal and self acquired properties. The Will is not

surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. There is no

question of inheritance of any movable or immovable

properties as the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are


not legal heirs of the deceased Testator. The Will was

proclaimed and read out from the ramparts of historic

Qila Mubarik, Faridkot on the Bhog ceremony of the last

rites of the testator in the presence of plaintiff and her

husband. She was given photo copy of the Will duly

attested by the Chief Executive S. Umrao Singh Dhaliwal

and on demand of the plaintiff after conclusion of Bhog

ceremony plaintiff never raised a little finger against the

Will, rather acquiesced and assented to the taking over of

the estate of the Testator by the Trust. In fact, she had

accepted the Will and did not stake any claim to the

succession to the estate of the deceased. In the Will there

is specific mention with regard to the maintenance and

other provisions for the family members of the Testator.

Testator also created a Trust in England vide settlement

deed dated 1-4-1955 making Grindlay Bank Limited,

London as sole Trustee with the object that his daughters

would not lay claim to his remaining estate. This is clear

manifestation of the intention of the Testator. Income

from the Trust was in full and final satisfaction of the

claims of the daughters to his estate. The bank was

directed to disburse income of the above investment half

yearly of first portion to his three daughters and of the

second portion to his son Tikka Harmohinder Singh.

Bank was also authorized to sell or convert the above


investments and invest into money in any manner to

maximize the income to the beneficiaries. After the

demise of Tikka Harmohinder Singh, the only of the

Testator, income of the second portion of the said Trust

also destined to go to the three daughters. Income from

the above investments throughout has been paid

regularly by the said bank according to their respective

shares. Permanent regular income from the Trust is

quite handsome amount for meeting the expenses of the

daughters of the Testator according to their status.

Provisions made in the above Settlement Deed dated 1-4-

1955 can not be said meager or paltry according to the

facts and circumstances of the case.

10.It has been further averred that the plaintiff was not at all

dependent upon the Testator at the time of execution of

the Will or at the time of his demise. She got herself

married in the year 1952. Her husband has been a high

ranking police officer in the State of Haryana. He had

also stint in B.S.F. and he retired as D.I.G. Haryana.

During his long service in police hierarchy, he

commanded great influence. The plaintiff has built a very

palatial house at Chandigarh. Plaintiff's family also own

considerable landed property in different villages. Her

children are highly educated. Her son is a high ranking

official in a bank in U.K. and is drawing handsome salary.


One of her daughter is Commissioner, Income Tax. Her

second daughter is practicing Advocate in Punjab and

Haryana High Court. Plaintiff's family is rolling in wealth.

All the children of the plaintiff are married in well off

families. There was no question of making any provision

for the well settled daughter in an affluent family. Rest of

the paras of the plaint were denied in toto. At last, a

prayer was made that suit may be dismissed with costs.

11. The defendants no.3 (4,6 and 9) also filed their separate

written statement and they took similar stand as that of

the defendants whose written statement has been

discussed above. They also stated that Will in question is

valid and legal document in the eyes of the law and is not

surrounded with mystery.

12.Defendant Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (plaintiff of

connected case) also filed his separate written statement

wherein he took legal objections to the effect that the

plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit

because late Raja Harinder Singh was Ex-Ruler of

Faridkot Estate and ancestors of late Raja Harinder Singh

and the answering defendants were Jat Sikh Brars and in

the matter of inheritance or succession the family of late

Raja Harinder Singh and the answering defendant is

governed by the Rule of Primogeniture. In the absence of

a male living child, according to the custom, the brothers


succeeds to the estate and thus after the death of late Raja

Harinder Singh, the answering defendant has inherited

all the movable and immovable property left by late Raja

Harinder Singh. The answering defendant was the only

brother and therefore, inherited all the property in

question left by late Raja Harinder Singh. The plaintiff in

the suit Smt. Amrit Kaur is daughter of late Raja

Harinder Singh and according to the rule of

Primogeniture, females do not inherit the property and

therefore, no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff

to file the suit.

13.On merits, the defendant took stand that late Raja

Harinder Singh was father of plaintiff Smt. Amrit Kaur

and Maharani Deepinder Kaur and Raj Kumari

Mahipinder Kaur. Raja Harinder Singh had one son who

died during the life time of Raja Harinder Singh. Thus,

the answering defendant by virtue of rule of

Primogeniture and custom has inherited the property in

question. The plaintiff Smt. Amrit Kaur and her sisters

defendants no.1 and 2 have no legal right to inherit the

property in question left by late Raja Harinder Singh.

According to custom, applicable in the family of

answering defendant and late Raja Harinder Singh only

male living child could succeed to the property and the

answering defendant being the only male member,


succeeds to the estate of late Raja Harinder Singh. It is

denied that at the time of merger of the Faridkot state in

the year 1948 late Raja Harinder Singh was holder of title

of ownership, use and enjoyment of the property as a

member of Joint Hindu Family property and co-parcener

property. It is also denied that Government of India

declared the succession of the properties subject to

inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act. The

answering defendant being the brother and there being

no other male member living in the family, the answering

defendant succeeded to all the immovable and movable

properties left by late Raja Harinder Singh on his death.

14.The defendant further averred that the Will under

question is fictitious and is forged and fabricated

document. Creation of alleged Trust by the alleged Will is

wholly null and void. Raja Harinder Singh had no right or

authority to create the alleged Trust by alleged Will. The

alleged Trust created by the alleged Will in perpetuity is

void, abinitio and is not permissible under the law.

Similarly, the dominant purpose of the alleged Trust is to

look after the old buildings and other movable properties

of the deceased Raja Harinder Singh. There is no

provision as to how the surplus income is to be utilized.

Accumulation of income of the Trust in perpetuity as

allegedly provided in the Will, is not permissible under


the law. Similarly, the alleged Trust created in the Will is

vague and indefinite and it carries inherent defects and

cumbersome procedure has been laid down for carrying

out the purpose of the Trust which is not possible to

implement and the alleged Trust under the Will is

therefore, void being in-executable. Rest of the paras of

the plaint were denied in toto. At last a prayer was made

for dismissal of present suit.

15.Replications were filed to the written statements in which

all the averments of the plaint were reiterated and that of

the written statements were denied.

16.In Civil Suit No. 4193/21-8-2010/4-4-1992, titled

Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh Vs Maharani

Deepinder Kaur and others, it has been averred by

the plaintiff of that suit Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh

(deceased through his legal heirs) that Raja Harinder

Singh was his brother. Said Raja Harinder Singh was the

erstwhile Ruler of Faridkot State (Phulkian State). The

pedigree table of late Raja Harinder Singh and the

plaintiff was also mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint.

Raja Harinder Singh, since deceased, had only one son

namely Tikka Harmohinder Singh who died on 13-10-

1981. Late Raja Harinder Singh had no other son at the

time of his death and had only daughters namely Raj

Kumari Amrit Kaur, Raj Kumari Deepinder Kaur and Raj


Kumari Maheepinder Kaur and her widow Her Highness

Narinder Kaur died during the life time of Raja Harinder

Singh. Late Raja Harinder Singh and plaintiff are Jat

Sikh Brars and in the matter of inheritance and

succession, they are governed by the customs. According

to the custom a Jat Sikh in Punjab has no power to

alienate his ancestral property by gift of by means of a

Will. According to the custom the gift of ancestral

property by Will is void ab-initio. In the matter of

inheritance and succession, the family of the plaintiff and

late Raja Harinder Singh is governed by Rule of

Primogeniture. In the absence of a male living child

according to the custom, the brother succeeds to the

estate. After the death of late Raja Harinder Singh,

brother of the deceased, the plaintiff has legally inherited

the movable and immovable property left by the late Raja

Harinder Singh. After the death of late Raja Harinder

Singh, a Will has been set up by the defendant which is

purported to have been made by late Raja Harinder Singh

on 1-6-1982. Said Will is fictitious and is a result of of

misrepresentation, undue influence played on Raja

Harinder Singh. Said Will was not made voluntarily by

late Raja Harinder Singh and was a result of

misrepresentation, undue influence exercised by the

defendants particularly by Brijinder Pal Singh Brar,


Advocate, who is attesting witness and is also a

beneficiary under the alleged Will.

17. It has been averred that late Raja Harinder Singh, due to

death of his only son, was mentally upset and remained

in continuous state of depression till his death and due to

this reason he was not in a position to make the Will

voluntarily as he was left with no capacity to think and

manage his affairs due to the depression. The members of

the Board of Administration particularly Brijinder Pal

Singh exercised undue influence on late Raja Harinder

Singh. As such, Will is null and void. According to the

alleged Will, a Trust in perpetuity has been created. Trust

is perpetuity is void abinitio and is not permissible under

the law. Similarly, the dominant purpose of the alleged

Trust is to look after the old buildings and other movable

properties of the deceased. Similarly, there is no

provision as to how the surplus income is to be utilized.

The accumulation of income of the Trust in perpetuity as

allegedly provided in the Will is not permissible under

the law. The Trust is, therefore, void and is non-existent.

Similarly, the alleged Trust created in the Will is vague

and indefinite and it carries inherent defects and

cumbersome procedure has been laid down for carrying

out the purpose of the Trust which is not possible to

implement and the alleged Trust under the Will is,


therefore, void being inexecutable.

18.It has been averred that on the death of late Raja

Harinder Singh, he left the movable and immovable

properties which finds mention in the Will and fully

mentioned in the heading of the plaint. On the death of

late Raja Harinder Singh, the plaintiff being the only

male descendant has succeeded to the property (movable

and immovable) according to the custom and according

to the rule of Primogeniture. As per rule of

Primogeniture, the eldest son succeeds to the property to

the exclusion of junior members of the family. In the

absence of male living descendant, the brother succeeds

to the property. Female heirs have no right to succeed to

the Estate of Raja Harinder Singh. Female heirs have no

right to succeed to the property of deceased according to

the custom and rule of Primogeniture prevalent in the

family of late Raja Harinder Singh. The plaintiff called

upon the defendants, number of times, to treat the

alleged Will as void and handover the possession of

movable and immovable properties to him, but all in

vain. Hence, the present suit was filed.

19.In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, the

defendants appeared and filed their written statements.

Defendants no.1 to 3, 5 and 7 filed their joint written

statement in which they, interlia, took legal objections to


the effect that pedigree table of the erstwhile Rulers of

the Faridkot State as set out in para no.1 of the plaint is

wrong and misleading. The defendants have given their

pedigree table in para no.1 of the written statement under

preliminary objections. The pedigree table given by the

defendants would show that Rule of Primogeniture was

not followed in Faridkot State even in the matter of

succession to the Gaddi. It is clear from the following

instances:-

(i) After the death of Sukhia in 1731, there was a fight

for succession between his three sons. Ultimately,

the estate was divided in three parts. Faridkot and

its adjoining area were retained by Hamir Singh the

second son, Mari Mustafa was assigned to the

youngest son Bir Singh while Kotkapura fell to the

lot of Jodh Singh, the eldest.

(ii) Hamir Singh, the Chief of Faridkot State leanised

his elder son Dal Singh and appointed his younger

son Mohar Singh as his successor. Thus, Mohar

Singh succeeded to the Gaddi when Hamir Singh

died in 1782.

(iii) Mohar Singh had two sons Charat Singh and

Bhupa. Mohar Singh had more love and affection

for his younger son Bhupa. Charat Singh revolted

against his father and usurped the Gaddi. Mohar


Singh was taken prisoner. Though later set at

liberty. He could never regain the Gaddi despite

repeated attempts.

(iv) Charat Singh was succeeded by his second son

Pahar Singh. Pahar Singh when he died in 1849 had

only one surviving son Wazir Singh who succeeded

him. Further, Wazir Singh was succeeded by his

only son Bikram Singh.

20.The above events of succession show that the claim of the

plaintiff that the Rule of Primogeniture was followed in

Faridkot State, is not at all established. Rule of

Primogeniture, on which the plaintiff staked his claim in

the present suit, governs succession to impartible estate

according to which the eldest male member of the family

would succeed by survivor-ship to the impartible estate.

It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the privy

council and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the

holder of an impartible estates is entitled to dispose of

the estate during his life time, there is no reason why he

would not be entitled to dispose of the same by a Will.

There is no restraint on the power of alienation of the

holder of the impartible estate as any restraint on the

power would be incompatible with the custom of

impartibility. The impartible estate, though ancestral, is

clothed with the incidents of self acquired and separate


property except as regards the right of survivor-ship

which is not inconsistent with the custom of impartibility.

Therefore, even if the alleged claim of the plaintiff that

the impartible estate of Faridkot was subject to the rule of

Primogeniture is accepted, the disposition of the estate by

Raja Harinder Singh by his Will dated 1-6-1982

bequeathing his entire estate to the Trust created thereby

is perfectly valid and cannot be questioned by the

plaintiff claiming himself to be the eldest male survivor of

the family. Rule of Primogeniture, if at all applicable

(though its applicability is vehemently denied) applied to

the 'Raj Gaddi' of the erstwhile Faridkot State. Gaddi is

distinct from the personal properties of the Maharaja. Raj

Gaddi meant ruler-ship of the State which on coming into

force of the constitution took the form of Ruler

recognized by the President of the Indian Union under

clause (22) of the Article 366 of the Constitution. After

the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Faridkot State of

which Raja Harinder Singh was the Ruler, became

integrated into Patiala and East Punjab States Union

(PEPSU) by virtue of the covenant executed by the Rulers

of the merging states, namely Faridkot, Jind, Kapurthala,

Malerkotla, Nabha, Patiala, Kalsia and Nalagarh. The

private properties of Raja Sir Harinder Singh which is the

subject matter of the present suit, was recognized under


the above covenant. There was no previous precedent

custom or usage or law governing the private property of

the Ruler. Therefore, neither the rule of Primogeniture

nor any custom governed the succession to the private

property of the Ex Ruler; that the civil Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; that the Civil

Court at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to

entertain the present suit. Following properties with the

Union Territory Chandigarh are included in the suit:-

(i) Agriculture land at village Kaimbwala.

(ii) Agriculture land at village Mauli Jagran.

(iii) Agriculture land at village Mani Majra.

(iv) Constructed fort known as Surajgarh Fort, Mani

Majra, bearing property no.1658, total area 14545.8

Sq. Mt. and shop bearing property no.259/9 to

259/15 on Samadh. Total area 1617.40 Sq. Mt.

(v) Hotel site no.12 situated in sector 17, Chandigarh.

As regards properties no. (i) to (iv), these were gifted to

Raja Harinder Singh by his grand mother Rani Suraj

Kaur vide registered Gift Deed dated 18-2-1937 alongwith

other landed and immovable property mentioned in the

Gift Deed. Rani Suraj Kaur inherited the same from her

mother Shabdit Kaur which the letter inherited from her

husband Raja Bhagwan Singh. Further, the defendants

pleaded the same stand which has been set up by them in


their written statement to the Civil Suit filed by Raj

Kumari Amrit Kaur. At last, a prayer was made for

dismissal of present suit.

21.The defendants no.4 and 6 filed their separate written

statement wherein they took the same stand as was taken

by defendants no.1 to 3,5 and 7.

22.Defendant no.9 and 12, 13 also filed their separate

written statements and took legal objections to the effect

that suit is not maintainable and further took the stand as

set up by the remaining defendants with a prayer for

dismissal of present suit.

23.Defendant no.14 filed her separate written statement

wherein she took legal objections to the effect that no

cause of action has been disclosed. The answering

defendant has filed a suit which is pending before this

Court being civil suit no.228 of 1992. Properties in

question in that suit are the same as the suit properties

herein. However, the said suit is premised on an

independent cause of action. The plaintiff in this suit has

no cause of action against the properties of late Raja

Harinder Singh. Succession to the suit property is

governed by the Hindu Succession Act whereby the

defendants no.1, 2 and 14 herein are entitled to succeed

to the entire suit property in equal share to the exclusion

of all others. Without prejudice to the aforesaid


contention, the answering defendant can also be entitled

to the entirety of the estate of her late father under the

provisions of Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act (Act V of

1948). The plaintiff is not in possession of any suit

property whatsoever, therefore, suit is misconceived. Suit

no.228 of 1992 is directly relevant to the instant

proceedings and statements contained in the said

pleadings may be adopted as and when necessary.

24.On merits, it has been submitted that the pedigree table

is false, partially concocted and incomplete. Said table

deliberately omits reference to the females including the

answering defendant and her two sisters. The answering

defendant is eldest surviving legitimate descendant of the

late Col. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar. It is denied that

they are or were governed by custom for the purposes of

inheritance and / or succession. Pursuant to the

enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, where-under the

late Raja and the plaintiff are bound by the Law of the

Union of India, no question of inheritance and / or

succession governed by custom arises. Said Act has

abrogated custom and it applies to whole of the India.

Further more, the Hindu Succession Act being a

reformative Act places women on an equal footing with

men pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It

is admitted that under Hindu Mitakshara Law, late Raja


was not competent to dispose of his ancestral property by

way of gift or testamentary disposition to any third party

since the property was the legal entitlement of defendants

no.1,2, and 14 or the answering defendant alone. It is

admitted that said Will is fictitious, fraudulent and is

result of undue influence and is surrounded by suspicious

circumstances. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner

of whole of the property or any portion of it. Further, the

answering re-iterated her stand as taken in plaint of

connected suit. At last, a prayer was made for dismissal of

present suit.

25.Replications were filed to the written statements in which

all the averments of the plaint were reiterated and that of

the written statements were denied. Ultimately, from the

pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 4-12-

2006. Vide order dated 9-6-2007 additional issues were

framed. Now following issues are pending before this

Court for adjudication:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the

extent of 1/3rd share of the suit property alongwith

defendants no.1 and 2 being daughters of deceased

under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and

the plaintiff thus is owner of 1/3rd share of the suit

property?OPP

2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled


to succeed to the entire estate of her father being

eldest surviving child? OPP

3. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled

to succeed as sole owner under Raja of Faridkot

Estate Act, 1948 (Act No.5 of 1948) being senior

most living child? OPP

4. Whether the property mentioned in Annexure A1 is

joint family and ancestral coparcenary property and

late Raja Harinder Singh had no right to alienate in

any manner?OPP

5. Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed by

Hindu Succession Act which had abrogated custom

and plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 inherited

the property in dispute in equal share according to

Hindu Succession Act and plaintiff has become

owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property? OPP

6. Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder Singh of

Faridkot executed a valid Will dated 1-6-1982? if so,

what is its effect? OPD

7. Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh

executed a valid Trust known as Faridkot Rulling

Family Housing Trust with the plaintiff and the

defendant no.1 and deceased defendant no.2 being

sole beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD

8. Whether the defendants are liable to render


accounts for the period they have been managing

and receiving income from the properties left by the

deceased late Raja Harinder Singh? OPD

9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or

misjoinder of parties? If so, what is its effect? OPD

10. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the

purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is

its effect? OPD

11. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to

try the suit? OPD

12. Whether the Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji

Trustis a valid legal entity? If so, what is its effect?

OPD

13. Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh and

defendant no.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh in

matters of inheritance and succession is governed

by Rule of Primogeniture and in the absence of

male lineal child according to custom,brother

succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.

14. Whether Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh defendant

no.6 inherited all the immovable and movable

properties of late Raja Harinder Singh under the

law of Primogeniture? OPD-6.

15. Whether according to Article 14 of the covenants of

Pepsu to which late Raja Harinder Singh was


signatory, succession was according to law and

custom to the Gaddi of each Covenanting States

was guaranteed and according to which plaintiff

under custom is entitled to inheritance to the estate

of Raja Harinder Singh under rule of Primogeniture

and the female heirs have no right to succeed to the

property of late Raja Harinder Singh according to

custom and rule of Primogeniture? OPD-6

16. Relief.

26.It is pertinent to mention here that civil suit Civil Suit No.

4193 / 21-8-2010/4-4-1992 titled Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others was

ordered to be consolidated and thereafter evidence was

ordered to be led in the Civil Suit 473/23-7-2010/15-10-

1992 titled as Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani

Deepinder Kaur and others

27.To prove the suit, plaintiff has examined the following

witnesses:-

PW1 -Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur @ Amrit Harpal Singh,

plaintiff herself.

PW2 -Sh. Dalip Singh, Kanungo, F.C. Appeals, Shimla.

PW3 -Mrs. Kusum Shahi, Record Clerk of District Courts,

Chandigarh.

PW4 -Kanwar Bharatinder Singh son of late Kanwar

Manjitinder Singh.


Thereafter, evidence of plaintiff Raj Kumar Amrit Kaur

was closed on 21-7-2012 and evidence of plaintiff Manjit

Inder Singh in connected case was closed by his learned

counsel on 5-10-2012.

28.In the name of documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have

relied upon various documents which are on record and

these could be discussed at relevant stage, if required.

29.On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of plaintiffs, the

defendants have examined the following witnesses:-

DW1 -Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar Advocate, District

Courts, Faridkot.

DW2 -Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Finger

Prints Expet, Patiala.

DW3 -Maharani Deepinder Kaur Sahiba, defendant

herself.

DW4 -Sh. Jagrup Singh son of Sh. Kirpal Singh, r/o

Dashmesh Nagar, Main Road, Faridkot.

DW5 -Sh. Madan Mohan Devgan son of Pandit Pran Nath

Devgan, Doggar Basti, Faridkot.

DW6 -Dr. Ravinder Goel son of Dh. Devinder Goel, r/o

Balbir Hospital Campus, Faridkot.

Thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.

30.In the name of documentary evidence, the defendants

have also relied upon various documents which are on

record and these could be discussed at relevant stage if


required.

31. Thereafter, chance of rebuttal was given to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff examined Ms. Jassy Anand, Handwriting and

Finger Print Expert as PW5 into rebuttal evidence and

thereafter rebuttal evidence was closed by learned

counsel for the plaintiffs.

32. I have heard Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and

Learned counsel for the defendants at length and perused

the case file very carefully with their assistance. Issue-

wise findings, with reasons thereof, are as under:-

ISSUES NO.1 TO 8, 12 TO 15

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed

to the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit

property alongwith defendants no.1 and 2

being daughters of deceased under the

provisions of Hindu Succession Act and the

plaintiff thus is owner of 1/3rd share of the

suit property?OPP

2. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is

entitled to succeed to the entire estate of

her father being eldest surviving child? OPP

3. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is

entitled to succeed as sole owner under

Raja of Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 (Act

No.5 of 1948) being senior most living


child? OPP

4. Whether the property mentioned in

Annexure A1 is joint family and

ancestral coparcenary property and

late Raja Harinder Singh had no right to

alienate in any manner?OPP

5. Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed

by Hindu Succession Act which had

abrogated custom and plaintiff and

defendants no.1 and 2 inherited the

property in dispute in equal share according

to Hindu Succession Act and plaintiff has

become owner of 1/3rd share of the suit

property? OPP

6. Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder

Singh of Faridkot executed a valid Will

dated 1-6-1982? if so, what is its effect? OPD

7. Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh

executed a valid Trust known as Faridkot

Ruling Family Housing Trust with the

plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and

deceased defendant no.2 being sole

beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD

8. Whether the defendants are liable to render

accounts for the period they have been


managing and receiving income from the

properties left by the deceased late Raja

Harinder Singh? OPD

12. Whether the Trust known as Maharwal

Khewaji Trustis a valid legal entity? If so,

what is its effect? OPD

13. Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh

and defendant no.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh in matters of inheritance and

succession is governed by Rule of

Primogeniture and in the absence of

male lineal child according to custom,

brother succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.

14. Whether Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh

defendant no.6 inherited all the immovable

and movable properties of late Raja

Harinder Singh under the law of

Primogeniture? OPD-6.

15. Whether according to Article 14 of the

covenants of Pepsu to which late Raja

Harinder Singh was signatory, succession

was according to law and custom to the

Gaddi of each Covenanting States was

guaranteed and according to which plaintiff

under custom is entitled to inheritance to


the estate of Raja Harinder Singh under rule

of Primogeniture and the female heirs have

no right to succeed to the property of late

Raja Harinder Singh according to custom

and rule of Primogeniture? OPD-6

33.All these issues are inter-connected and inter-linked, so

they are hereby taken up together as common evidence is

to be discussed for their disposal and to avoid any

repetition.

34.Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted his

written arguments as well as oral arguments whereby he

vehemently argued that plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur

is real daughter of late Raja Harinder Singh, testator of

the Will dated 1-6-1982 Ex DW2/B. This Will was never

executed by Raja Harinder Singh during his life time. The

Will dated 1-6-1982 is result of fraud, misrepresentation

and indue influence. Burden was rested upon the

defendants to prove the execution of Will, but they have

totally failed to prove that the Will under question was

executed by Raja Harinder Singh during his lifetime. The

plaintiff is the eldest daughter of Raja Harinder Singh

and she was on visiting terms with her father and there

was no reason to deprive of her from her legitimate claim

to inherit his property. Brother of the plaintiff passed

away in the year 1981 and younger sister Maheepinder


Kaur died in the year 2001 and her mother Rani Narinder

Kaur died in 1986. Her maternal grand mother had

earlier died in 1985. In this manner, now only the

plaintiff and defendant no.1 Maharani Deepinder Kaur

have left to inherit the property of late Raja Harinder

Singh. The plaintiff enjoyed very loving and harmonious

relationship with her parents and it is crystal clear vide

Ex P2 to Ex P43 and Ex P55 to Ex P66 which is

correspondence of letters took place between Raja

Harinder Singh and the plaintiff and other family

members. These letters reflect that the plaintiff and her

father enjoyed close, cordial and healthy relationship as

is expected between any father and his daughter. DW3

Maharani Deepinder Kaur has also stated in her

cross examination that Raja made the Faridkot Family

Settlement Trust in 1955 of which all the four children

were beneficiaries. The Trust, based in UK, provided

income to all the four children and was divided into two

equal portions of which the income of one portion was

paid to Raja's son during his lifetime and the income of

second portion was shared equally amongst the three

daughters. It has been admitted that after the death of

the youngest sister in 2001, her share of the income is

being shared equally between the two surviving sisters.

Moreover, the income which was previously being paid to


the Raja's son, is being paid to the plaintiff on the basis of

the application of rule of Primogeniture as applicable to

the dynasty. This witness has admitted in her cross

examination that the plaintiff attended upon her father

during his illness and she looked after her father. This

witness also admitted that plaintiff was present when her

father passed away in Delhi and she accompanied the

body to Faridkot in the funeral van. The witness has also

not denied that in 1972 litigation was pending in the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which late Raja had

taken the categorical stand that the Rule of

Primogeniture applied to the Royal family of Faridkot

absolutely. Vide Ex PW2/1, Ex PW2/2 and Ex

PW2/3, it is also very much clear that Raja was

intending to give land situated in Himachal Pradesh to

his daughters.

35.Learned counsel further argued that the attesting witness

of alleged Will Mr. Barjinder Pal Singh DW1 has also

failed to prove the due execution of the Will in question.

DW1 has stated that he had seen the original registered

Will dated 1-6-1982 produced by Lalit Mohan Gupta,

Chief Executive, Maharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot. But

Lalit Mohan Gupta never appeared as a witness to

produce the said Will in evidence and to prove its proper

custody with him and no opportunity was given to the


plaintiff to cross examine this person and request of

plaintiff was declined by the Court. Therefore, adverse

inference is to be drawn under section 114 of Indian

Evidence Act against the defendants. DW1 has also

stated that he reached Raj Mahal at about 5:00 p.m. on 1-

6-1982 and he was called by Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar

through a Nafar in Raj Mahal and S. Jagir Singh

Lamberdar was present there. Raja Sahib had told both of

them that he himself had drafted and got typed the Will

and stated that it was his holograph Will and he read over

its contents to both of them and then the Raja had signed

the Will in their presence followed by both of them in his

presence. Raja had also written the date of the Will as 1st

June 1982 in his own hand in their presence and signed

each and every page of the document. DW1 also stated

that this Will was registered by Sh. Sadhu Ram, Tehsildar

/ Sub Registrar, Faridkot by arriving in Raj Mahal on

commission basis alongwith his staff and the Will was

presented before him for registration by the testator and

thereafter Sub Registrar had made endorsement of

presentation thereon and it was duly signed by the

testator. This witness made an attempt to prove the

signatures of testator, but in fact this Will was not signed

by the testator nor it was registered legally in accordance

with law by the Sub Registrar, Faridkot in Raja Mahal on


that date and it is full of suspicious circumstances. DW1

Brijinder Pal Singh Brar has made an attempt to project

himself as having a close and personal relationship with

the late Raja and because of that he was a witness to the

Will. However, his cross examination clearly brings out

the fact that this witness was not at all close to late Raja

and in fact was playing in the hands of defendant no.4

Rajnit Singh Wahniwal. DW1 Brijinder Pal Singh has

been practicing as an Advocate since 1968 and has

admitted that he has never signed on blank papers. He

was confronted with summoned record of office of Sub

Registrar and he admitted that it is his signatures and

signatures of other witness Jagir Singh at one place and

signatures of Raja Harinder Singh at two places on blank

page i.e. reverse of page 1 of Gurmukhi Will Ex PX2. Ex

PX2 is the certified copy of alleged Will in English and

alleged Will in Gurmukhi as pasted in Book 3 register of

Sub Registrar, Faridkot. Endorsement paragraphs in both

the disputed English Wills have been written above the

pre-existing first signatures readable as Harinder Singh

as on the blank page of the Gurmukhi Will. The other

legal processes regarding the registration of two disputed

English Wills have been completed in the similar blank

spaces as on the blank page of the Gurmukhi Will

between first and second signatures readable as Harinder


Singh. Similarly, other formalities have been completed

in English Wills in the blank spaces as on the blank page

of the Gurmukhi Will between the signatures of both

witnesses and second signatures of Raja Harinder Singh.

This proves the fact that first signatures of Raja were

prepared on blank papers and then the Will was typed on

those blank papers and therefore, it further substantiate

that it is a forged and fabricated Will and this fact has

also been observed in detail by PW5 Dr.Jassy Anand who

has been examined by the plaintiff to strengthen her case.

36.Learned counsel argued that DW1 who claims to have

been called by Raja Harinder Singh to become witness on

the alleged Will, is not even aware about the number of

copies of Will were there and how many copies were

signed by Raja and witnesses. Testimony of DW1 is of

frail nature and firstly he stated that on 14-2-2013 in his

evidence that there were two copies of Will, then he

stated that both the copies were taken out as printouts

and he also stated that there was no other document with

Maharaja except the copies of the Will. He also stated

that Maharaja signed both the copies of Will and then he

himself and Jagir Singh witness put their signatures on

the said two copies of the Will. This witness never stated

about putting of the signatures by Raja Harinder Singh

on Will scribed in Gurmukhi script. Even different pens


were used by two witnesses to put their signatures and it

is evident on the perusal of the Wills. DW1 has

contradicted himself with earlier statement because

earlier he had stated that there was no cuttings on the

Will, whereas in his cross examination he admitted that

there was typed cutting and these lapses are sufficient to

disprove the execution of the Will. Further, DW1 has

stated in his cross examination that he did not remember

whether Sub Registrar took all the Wills alongwith him or

he left any of it with Raja Harinder Singh after

registration. He does not remember whether the officials

of the Sub Registrar brought any register alongwith them

for the purpose of registration of the document. He does

not remember whether the officials of the Sub Registrar

made any entry in the register while sitting in the Raj

Mahal regarding registration of t

raj kumari amrit kaur latest jugment 2013

Documents

singh counsel

ranjit singh son of

bishan singh

kishan singh

gurdev singh

harpal singh

shri umrao singh son

shamsher singh sandhu