Rule of Primogeniture Does Not Govern Succession to Erstwhile Ruler's Private Properties, Supreme Court Holds
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti rules that private properties declared by the Kapurthala Maharaja under the merger covenant devolve under Hindu Law, not primogeniture, and orders a preliminary partition decree among surviving family members.
The Supreme Court has set aside concurrent judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had upheld the claim of Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, the erstwhile ruler of Kapurthala, to be the absolute owner of his family's private properties by virtue of the rule of male lineal primogeniture. A division bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti held on 27 May 2026 that once the Maharaja of Kapurthala signed the merger covenant in 1948 and declared certain properties to be his private personal properties, those properties ceased to be governed by the rule of primogeniture and fell to be distributed among his heirs under Hindu Law. The Court allowed the appeal in part, directed a preliminary decree of partition, and worked out specific fractional shares for each surviving family member across four categories of immovable property.
A Dispute Between Two Arms of the Kapurthala Royal Family
The litigation traces back to 1977, when two suits were filed in the original side of the High Court. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh — the eldest male lineal descendant of late Maharaja Paramjit Singh and recognised by the Government of India as the ruler of Kapurthala — filed Original Suit No. 35 of 1977 seeking a declaration that certain properties, including the Villa at Kapurthala and the Chateau in Mussoorie, were his personal properties. His estranged wife Smt. Gita Devi, their two sons Shatrujit Singh and Amanjit Singh, and their two daughters Priti Devi and Gayatri Devi filed Original Suit No. 1052 of 1977 seeking partition of the family properties, contending that those properties were ancestral coparcenary properties divisible under Hindu Law.
The Brigadier's core position was that Kapurthala was a princely state governed by the rule of male lineal primogeniture, under which the eldest male lineal descendant inherited the entire estate to the exclusion of all others. He argued that neither the lapse of British paramountcy on 15 August 1947, nor the merger of the State of Kapurthala on 20 August 1948, nor the coming into force of the Constitution on 26 January 1950 altered this position. He also relied on two wills — one by his grandfather Maharaja Jagatjit Singh dated 16 January 1949 and another by his father Maharaja Paramjit Singh dated 10 July 1955 — though the Single Judge had already found against him on those wills in 1992, and that finding was not reopened on review.
The Single Judge initially ruled in favour of the family in 1992, holding the properties to be ancestral coparcenary properties liable to partition. On review, the matter was reheard on issues other than those relating to the wills. Upon rehearing, the Single Judge reversed course in 2004 and held that the Brigadier had succeeded to the properties under the rule of primogeniture and was their absolute owner, dismissing the partition suit. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed that view on 19 November 2010. The family members, except daughter Gayatri Devi who supported the Brigadier's case, brought the present appeal.
The Merger Covenant and the Character of Private Properties
The Court examined the covenant of merger dated 5 May 1948, signed by the rulers of Faridkot, Jind, Malerkotla, Nabha, Patiala, Kalsia, Nalagarh, and Kapurthala for the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). Under Article VI of that covenant, all rights, authority, and jurisdiction of the rulers vested in the Union, and all assets and liabilities of the covenanting states became those of the Union. Article XI provided for a privy purse. Article XII entitled each ruler to full ownership, use, and enjoyment of all private properties — as distinct from State properties — upon furnishing an inventory by 20 September 1948. Article XIV guaranteed succession according to law and custom only to the Gaddi (throne) and to the personal rights, privileges, and titles of the ruler.
Maharaja Jagatjit Singh made two declarations. On 11 August 1948, he declared the Mussoorie estate — comprising Chateau, St. Helens, St. Helens Cottage, Wycliffe, and ADC Quarters — to be his private and personal properties that would descend to his “heirs and successors” as private and personal property. On 11 April 1949, he declared a further list of properties, including Jagatjit Palace, Elysee, and several other residences in Kapurthala and Mussoorie, as his private properties.
The Court read the use of the plural “heirs and successors” in the Mussoorie Declaration as indicating the Maharaja's explicit intention that the properties be succeeded by all his heirs, not by a single successor, which the Court said contradicted the rule of primogeniture. The declaration was made before the actual merger on 20 August 1948, and the Court treated it as a sovereign decree expressing the Maharaja's intention to share his private personal properties among all his descendants.
The Precedent Line: Travancore, Rampur, Dholpur, and Faridkot
The Court surveyed a consistent line of three-judge bench decisions of this Court on the precise question of whether private properties declared by an erstwhile ruler under a merger covenant devolve by the rule of primogeniture or by personal law.
In Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. His Highness Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (the Travancore case), this Court accepted that before accession, properties of the State of Travancore devolved ruler to ruler by male lineal primogeniture. But once the Maharaja specifically declared properties to be his private properties under the covenant, those properties acquired the status of private and personal properties and were no longer State properties.
In Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (the Rampur case), a three-judge bench considered whether succession to properties declared by the Nawab of Rampur as his private properties would be governed by the rule of primogeniture applicable to the Gaddi or by his personal law. The Court held that a ruler under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, though defined as a ruler, had no territory and exercised no sovereignty. He was simply a citizen of India with certain privileges. Succession to the Gaddi was distinct from succession to private properties, which had to follow personal law. The Court also held that Article 362 of the Constitution protected only personal rights, privileges, and dignities of the ruler and did not include succession to personal properties.
In Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India (the Dholpur case), a Constitution Bench had similarly held that the right to private properties of the last ruler depended upon the personal law of succession, and that recognition of the ruler's right to succession to the Gaddi by the President was an exercise of executive power distinct from succession to private properties.
Most recently, in Maharani Deepinder Kaur v. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (the Faridkot case), a three-judge bench upheld the High Court's finding that the rule of primogeniture, if any, ceased to exist upon the merger of the Faridkot State with the Dominion of India. Article XIV of the covenant recognised succession according to law and custom only to the Gaddi and not to private properties. The High Court had observed that the concept of an impartible State disappeared with the merger, and that once properties were declared private, they lost their sovereign character. The three-judge bench in Faridkot approved those findings as fully justified.
Why the Division Bench Decision in Trijugi Narain Does Not Prevail
The Brigadier's counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Sankoo (Dead) Through Lrs., which had held, in the context of the State of Maihar, that succession to erstwhile sovereign property now held as private property would devolve according to the customs applicable to the erstwhile rulers, i.e., the rule of primogeniture. That bench had sought to distinguish the Rampur case by saying it was limited to Muslim Personal Law.
The Court in the present case rejected that reading. It held that the ratio of the Rampur case was not about which personal law applied, but about whether the rule of primogeniture applied at all so as to exclude personal law. The answer given by the three-judge bench in Rampur was that private properties held by the Nawab, upon cessation of sovereignty, would not automatically devolve upon his eldest son by the rule of primogeniture but would be governed by his personal laws, whether Muslim or Hindu.
The Court further held that as a matter of judicial discipline, the Division Bench decision in Trijugi Narain could not prevail over the three-judge bench decisions in Rampur and Faridkot. The Faridkot decision, rendered on 7 September 2022, post-dated Trijugi Narain and ruled otherwise. The Court also invoked the principle that judges interpret statutes, not judgments, and that judicial utterances made in the setting of particular facts are not to be read as legislative enactments.
Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act and Why It Does Not Apply
The Court examined Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes from the Act's operation any estate that descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India. The Brigadier's side had relied on this provision to argue that the estate was exempt from the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court held that this provision was not in force when the properties in question devolved upon Maharaja Paramjit Singh on 19 June 1949, immediately after the merger agreement. The Hindu Succession Act came into force only on 17 June 1956. By that time, the properties had already acquired the status of private property of Maharaja Paramjit Singh as an ordinary citizen. Moreover, the merger covenant guaranteed the custom of primogeniture only for the Gaddi, not for private property. Accordingly, Section 5(ii) was not applicable, and the private properties of an ordinary citizen were required to devolve according to the ordinary personal law then in force, namely Hindu Mitakshara Law.
Working Out the Shares: Four Categories of Property
By the time the appeal was heard, counsel for both sides confirmed that only four immovable properties remained in dispute, all other properties having ceased to exist. The Court dealt with each category separately.
The first two properties — the double-storeyed residential house at B-90A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, and Commercial Flat No. 101, Surya Kiran, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi — were admittedly purchased from the sale proceeds of Jagatjit Palace and Elysee Palace, Kapurthala, and stood in the joint names of the Brigadier and Smt. Gita Devi. Both parties had confirmed this before the trial court on 9 September 2001. The Court held that irrespective of their character as ancestral or individual, they were liable to partition between the joint holders. Upon the demise of Smt. Gita Devi, her undivided half share devolved equally among her four Class I heirs under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Brigadier is accordingly entitled to a 5/8th share (his original 1/2 plus 1/8th inherited), while the surviving son and two daughters are each entitled to a 1/8th share.
The third property — Villa Bouna Vista along with Cottage Villa Chalet, servant quarters, and garages at Village Chuharwal, District Kapurthala — stood in the joint names of the two sons. The Brigadier himself had stated in his written statement that he had “no objection” to the property continuing in the names of his two sons. The Court held that the Brigadier had no share in this property. Each son originally held a 1/2 share. Upon the death of son Amanjit Singh on 10 November 1991, his 1/2 share devolved upon Smt. Gita Devi, who had been declared his sole heir by the High Court. Upon Smt. Gita Devi's subsequent death, that 1/2 share devolved equally among the Brigadier, the surviving son, and the two daughters. The surviving son therefore holds his original 1/2 share plus a 1/8th share from Smt. Gita Devi's estate, totalling 5/8th. The Brigadier and each of the two daughters hold 1/8th each.
The fourth property — the Kapurthala Chateau and St. Helens at Mussoorie, along with associated movables — was the only immovable property declared to be the private personal property of the ruler. This property was held to be partitioned under Hindu Law. The Court directed that it be divided in equal 1/4th shares among the four surviving heirs: the Brigadier, one surviving son, and two daughters, after accounting for the intestate shares of the deceased son and the deceased Smt. Gita Devi redistributed among the survivors under Sections 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.
As for the jewellery lying in Sociétés Générale, Paris, and shares in joint stock companies held with the First National City Bank, Bombay, the Court held that these were not properties declared to be the private personal properties of the ruler and would not devolve upon the family members under Hindu Law.
Order
The Court set aside the judgment and order dated 19 November 2010 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the Single Judge's order dated 3 September 2004 decreeing the Brigadier's suit and dismissing the partition suit. The appeal was allowed in part. A preliminary decree of partition was directed to be drawn in accordance with the shares described above. No order as to costs was made.