Supreme Court delivers judgment in a 47-year-old suit on succession of properties of erstwhile Nawab

Succession to the properties declared by an erstwhile ruler to be his private properties in the agreement of accession with the Dominion of India will be governed by the personal law applicable to the ruler, the Supreme Court held..A Bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Anirudhha Bose held that the rule of succession applicable to the “Gaddi” (rulership) will not apply..The ruling came in a dispute dating back to 1972 involving successors of Nawab Raza Ali Khan, the erstwhile ruler of Rampur..Background – Partition.When the British decided to withdraw from India, two dominions were created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947 – India and Pakistan. Rulers of Princely States had the option to join either of the dominions..Section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935 provided that an instrument of accession was to be executed by the ruler of the State. Various rulers signed instruments of accession on various dates..In the various talks held by the Indian Government and the princely States, it was decided to give some privileges and perquisites to the rulers. The privileges which were to be granted to the rulers included exemption from the operation of certain laws, the enjoyment of Jagirs and personal properties of the rulers, gun salutes etc..Nawab Raza Ali Khan was the ruler of Rampur. The State of Rampur merged into the Union of India. Merger Agreement was signed by the Nawab in 1949. As per the terms of merger agreement, the Nawab was entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinguished from State properties) belonging to him..When the Constitution came into force in 1950, the Nawab was declared to be ruler in terms of Article 366(22)..The Nawab passed away in 1966 intestate..The Dispute.After the death of Nawab Raza Ali Khan, the President of India in terms of clause (22) of Article 366 recognised his eldest son Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan, defendant no. 1 to be the ruler..None of the other parties challenged this declaration recognising defendant no.1 to be the ruler. In 1966 a certificate was issued in which defendant no. 1 was not only recognised as ruler of Rampur but it was also certified that he was the sole successor to all private properties – movable and immovable – held by Late Nawab Raza Ali Khan. The certificate was challenged by Syed Zulfiquar Ali Khan, defendant no. 3, the second son of Nawab Raza Ali Khan, by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. Three other similar petitions were filed by the daughters of Nawab Raza Ali Khan. The High Court of Delhi allowed the petition and quashed the certificate..In 1972, the plaintiff who is the granddaughter of Nawab Raza Ali Khan filed a suit for partition, accounts, mesne profits in respect to the suit properties left by Nawab Raza Ali Khan..In January 1995, the said suit of 1972 was withdrawn by the High Court of Allahabad and tried by itself. A Single Judge dismissed the suit 1i 1996 and a Division Bench upheld the decision of the single judge. This led to the current appeals in the Supreme Court..Submissions.The case of the plaintiff was that the properties declared by Nawab Raza Ali Khan to be his private properties in terms of the merger agreement were his private properties and all legal heirs were entitled to a share in the property as per personal law. The plaintiff also asserted that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was extended to the State of Rampur on January 1, 1950..After ceding the property to the Dominion of India and especially after the enforcement of the Constitution of India, Nawab Raza Ali Khan was a ruler only for the purposes of enjoying the privy purse and some personal rights, privileges, immunities and titles. For all other purposes including succession, he was an ordinary citizen..On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the property was not, strictly speaking, the personal property of the Nawab. According to them, the property was attached to the ‘Gaddi’ of the State of Rampur. Therefore, it was governed by the law of succession which was admittedly applicable to the rulership of Rampur which was the rule of male lineal primogeniture. This basically meant that the senior-most male heir would take everything to the exclusion of all other heirs. It was also urged that the property was an impartible estate and, therefore, the rule of primogeniture would govern the same..The issue before the Court was as follows:.“Whether succession to the properties declared by an erstwhile ruler to be his private properties in the agreement of accession with the Dominion of India will be governed by the rule of succession applicable to the “Gaddi” (rulership) or by the personal law applicable to the ruler?”.Judgment.The Court summarised the controversy succinctly as follows – The issue is whether the rulers continued to be rulers after executing the instruments of merger..Addressing this issue, the Court noted that erstwhile rulers had agreed to merge their States with the Indian Union because they were to be paid privy purses and would enjoy certain privileges. They were also entitled to declare some properties to be their private properties. In case of disputes whether the property is private or State property, the Union could refer the dispute for decision to a committee headed by a judicial officer..Thus, the Court made it clear that the rulers were no longer sovereign. There was no paramountcy vested in the rulers. They had no land other than the private properties. They had no subjects. They were rulers only in name, left only with the recognition of their original title, a privy purse, some privileges, etc..“It is apparent that the rulers were rulers only in name. They held no land except the personal properties. There were no subjects. They were Maharajas or Rajas without a Praja; without any sovereignty; and without any territory.”.The Court also adverted to the definition of ruler under clause 22 of Article 366..As per the same, a person who is defined as ruler is a former prince, chief or other person, who was, on or after January 26, 1950 recognised as a ruler having signed the covenant of accession. Necessarily, the ruler was a person who was recognised before independence by the British Crown and was the sovereign of his State. Such a person, though defined as a ‘Ruler’, has no territory and exercises no sovereignty over any subjects. He has no attributes of a potentate nor does he enjoy all the powers and privileges which are normally exercised by a potentate. The President while exercising his powers under Article 366 (22) could not notify a ruler at his whims and fancy..Thus, declaration under clause (22) of Article 366 relates only to the Gaddi or the rulership and not to the properties which were declared to be private properties by the ruler..Having settled this issue, the Court came to the contention that there could be no Gaddi without property and the properties which were declared to be the private properties were, in fact, attached to the Gaddi and the properties would be of the ruler so declared..The Court said that there is no merit in this contention since the rulers were rulers without a State..When they were actual sovereigns, their entire State was attached to the Gaddi and not any particular property. There are no specific properties which can be attached to the Gaddi. It has to be the entire ‘State’ or nothing, the Court held..Since, these rulers were rulers only as a matter of courtesy, to protect their erstwhile titles, the properties which were declared to be their personal properties had to be treated as their personal properties and could not be treated as properties attached to the Gaddi, the Court concluded..Rulers enjoyed the right to privy purses, private properties and privileges only because of the Constitution and in other respects, they were ordinary citizens. In Article 362 reference is made only to the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the ruler of an Indian State and the said rights would not include succession to personal properties..Thus, the Court ruled that Succession to the properties declared by an erstwhile ruler to be his private properties in the agreement of accession with the Dominion of India will be governed by the personal law. In the instant case, since the Nawab was a Shia his estate will devolve upon his heirs under the Muslim personal law, as applicable to Shias, the Court ruled..It, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of Allahabad High Court..[Read Judgment]