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.
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 2
(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.
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 3
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 4
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 5
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 6
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 7
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 8
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 9
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 10
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 11
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 12
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 13
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 14
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 15
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;
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 16
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 17
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 18
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 19
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 20
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 21
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 22
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 23
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 24
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 25
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 26
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.
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 27
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 28
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,
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 29
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 30
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 31
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,
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 32
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,
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 33
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 34
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 35
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 36
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 37
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 38
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 39
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 40
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 41
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 42
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 43
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.
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 44
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 45
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 46
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 47
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 48
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 49
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 50
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 51
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 52
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 53
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
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others 54
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