State of
Punjab & Ors Vs. Brigadier Sukhjit
Singh [1993] INSC 304 (11
June 1993)
Punchhi,
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Agrawal,
S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (3) 944 1993 SCC (3) 459 JT 1993 (3) 748 1993 SCALE (3)25
ACT:
%
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article
13- Farman issued by a Ruler of an erstwhile Indian State--Sovereign will could be expressed
in any manner and it becomes binding as law.
Transfer
of Property Act, Title to property-Merger of States- Erstwhile Ruler of Indian
State-Not enlisting particular property while declaring his private
properties-But issuing a Farman that the property would vest with each
succeeding heir apparent- Effect of Title-Whether could be claimed by State.
Easements
Act, 1882:
Sections
52, 60, 61 & 62-Licence-Payment of licence fee not essential for
subsistence of-Revocation of licence-Occupier
State to vacate-Orders of lower
courts-confirmed.
Limitation
Act, 1963:
Article
65-Adverse possession-Licensee continuing as such for long--Permissive
possession-Whether becomes hostile by long lapse of time so as to claim adverse
possession.
Specific
Relief Act, 1963:
S.
39-Suit for eviction-Property, occupied by State and claiming title
thereof-Plaintiff descendent of erstwhile Ruler who issued Farman-Property
neither personal nor of State-To be succeeded by heir apparent-Mandatory
Injunction issued by Courts below- Confirmed-State to vacate the premises.
HEAD NOTE:
The
building in dispute viz. a double storeyed building has been in the 945
occupation of the State Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent filed
a suit claiming that he was the owner of the building and that the possession
by the State was permissive in character and in the nature of a licence, and
even after he had terminated the same, the State had not vacated the building.
He therefore sought mandatory injunction requiring the State to vacate the
premises and to keep its hands off from the other properties in the complex
known as Jallowkhana Complex owned and possessed by him.
The
State disputed the claim on the ground that since the erstwhile Ruler of Kapurthala
State, the ancestor of plaintiff, did not enlist the Jallowkhana Complex as
part of his private properties at the time of merger of States, the entire
complex was owned by the State.
The
trial court partially decreed the suit holding that except the double storeyed
budding in occupation of the State, the remnants in the Jallowkhana complex was
owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent. It took the view that the
State had become the owner of the said double storeyed building by lapse of
time; that there was no licence since admittedly no licence fee had ever been
paid.
In
respect of the other portions of the property, the trial court found that the
State had the right of easement.
Cross
appeals came to be filed before the District Court.
The
appeal of the State was dismissed and that of the plaintiff-respondent was
allowed resulting in the, suit being decreed in entirety. The second appeals
filed by the State were dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals by the
State.
Dismissing
the appeals, this court HELD: 1. Jallowkhana complex is one integrated
property.
Whatever
is composed thereof is Jallowkhana. There cannot be two owners to such
property. The property must remain with the heir-apparent. The State cannot
partially be an heir-apparent. On the other hand when the plaintiff respondent
terms the State as a licensee, it cannot be negatived on the mere plea that no licence
fee was agreed to be paid. Payment of licence fee is not an essential attribute
for the subsistence of a licence. The mere fact that the licence is of long
duration dating back to the year 1925, as suggested by some of the plaintiffs
witnesses, or of 1947 as said by the witnesses of the State, is of no
consequence. (952-H, 953-A,B)
2.
Permissive possession, however long, cannot by itself be said to have become
hostile by a "long lapse of time", more so, on property, the nature
and 946 character of which is unique and singular, having attributes of being
impersonal. Such status of the property rules out the objection regarding
adverse possession for which even an issue was not claimed in the Courts below
keeping apart the pleadings. (953-B-C)
3.1.
It is beyond doubt that the ruler of an Indian state was in the position of a
sovereign, and his command was the law. His Farman had the strength and potency
of a law made by an elected legislature and his acts, administrative or
executive, were sovereign in character. The Farman has necessarily to be
imported with those attributes. (951-G-H, 952-A)
3.2.
Creating such kind of a special estate undeniably was within the competence of
the ruler. His creative dimension and imaginative skill need not have conformed
to any set standards or patterns known to jurisprudence or law. His sovereign
will could have been expressed in various innovations. And this is an instance
in which he put his sentiment, attached to the complex, at a pedestal at which
it was neither to be treated as State property nor personal property either for
him or in the hands of the succeeding heirsapparent in the line of
primogeniture. Its ownership and possession in the hands of each succeeding
heir-apparent was devised as purposive, for perpetually keeping its integrity
and the name of the dynasty alive, the jallowkhana structure symbolising such
continuance by its special status and reverence. (952-E,G)
4.
Tide to the double storeyed building in question could not be divested from the
plaintiff due to the unique and singular character of the property, it having
attributes of being impersonal, as also by mere lapse of time, or (in account
of non-payment of any licence fee or rent. On an adverse possession, for which
there is no plea as well as the property in dispute being an integral part of a
complex, to which complex the claim of the State to it--. ownership has failed,
and finally the ruler on merger of his State need not have claimed this to be
his personal property to maintain the suit and seek relief. Thus the State has
no tide to the disputed property and hence must obey the mandatory injunction
issued by the lower appellate court as confirmed by the High Court. The
mandatory injunction granted by the lower appellate court is so weakly worded
that it is capable of being evaded totally, and in any event for a very long
time to the point of negating it. In any case the injunction has to be carried
out within a reasonable time. The mandatory injunction issued by the lower
appellate court should be carried out in its entirety, latest by the end of
three years, if not earlier, and on the breach of which the law may take its
own course. (953-C-G) 947
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1007-08 of 1992.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.1991 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1719 & 1720 of
1989.
Kapil Sibal,
Ranbir Singh Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
D.D. Thakur.
Anil Mittal and Manoj Swarup for the Respondent.
The Judgement
of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. These two appeals at the instance of
the State of Punjab, are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, passed in Regular Second Appeal
Nos. 1719 and 1720 of 1989 and are limited in scope to the determination of
title to a double storeyed building situated in a complex known as Jallowkhana
in the town of Kapurthala. These appeals have arisen in the following manner.
The
respondent herein is Brigadier Sukhjit Singh. He is the son of Maharaja Paramjit
Singh and the grand-son of Maharja Jagajit Singh in the order of primogeniture
succession. The ancestory of Maharaja Jagajit Singh is traced to Baba Jassa
Singh Ahluwalia, the founder of Kapurthala State and the Ahluwalia dynasty. It is
common ground that there is a complex known as Jallowkhana at Kapurthala which
encompasses two historic havelis, which in the context mean palaces, going by
the names Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal.
Besides
these two havelis, there are open spaces and other structures in the complex
and the disputed one is a double storeyed building presently in the occupation
of state of Punjab through its Public Works
Department. The plaintiff- respondent claiming that since the possession of the
State of Punjab thereon was permissive in character and in the nature of a licence,
and despite his terminating the same the State of Punjab had not vacated the
disputed building, he sought relief by way of suit for mandatory injunction
requiring the State of Punjab to vacate the premises, and to keep its hands off
from the other properties in the complex over which the plaintiff-respondent
was owner in possession.
The
State of Punjab on the other hand disputed the
ownership of the plaintiff to the Jallowkhana complex and claimed that the
building in dispute belonged to the government and was being maintained by the
Public Works Department at state expense since 1947. The possession of
plaintiff towards any part of the 948 buildings was denied. It was pleaded that
when the princely states in this part of the country merged with the State
known as the Patiala and Fast Punjab State Unions
(PEPSU), the rulers of the merging States were required to declare their
private properties, but the ruler of Kapurthala State.
however,
while declaring his private. properties, did not enlist the Jallowkhana complex
as part of his private properties. On that analysis it was claimed that the
entire jallowkhana complex was owned by the State.
Since
there were various pleas on both sides on locus, jurisdiction. limitation, estoppal
and maintainability, a number of issues were Struck on the pleadings of the
parties, but we are not concerned with them any more for they stand settled one
way Or the other so as to steer the suit to its conclusion on title to the
properties.
The
trial court on its part partially decreed the suit holding that except the
double storeyed building, in occupation of the State of Punjab, the remnants in
the Jallowkhana complex was owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent. It
took the view that the State of Punjab had become the owner of the said double storeyed building by lapse of
time. It viewed that there was no licence since admittedly no licence fee had
ever been paid.
Grounding
its conclusion solely on that basis it held that even though the common
entrance to the double storeyed building as well as to the palaces known as Haveli
Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal through the deori was owned by the
plaintiff-respondent still the State of Punjab had a right of passage through it as easement. Similarly it held that
tile open courtyard in front of the double storeyed building as indicated in
the plan. was in the ownership of the plaintiff but the defendant-State had an
easement of passage over it. The court however did notice the fact that the
State of Punjab had never pleaded alternatively any
such easements and yet had no hesitation in the ,rant thereof.
In the
result the State of Punjab succeeded in quelling the claim of ownership of the
plaintiff to the double storeyed building and it was held to be tile property
of the State "because of lapse of time", and other portions of the
property as aforementioned were found to be subjected to easements, its spelled
out earlier. The remaining part of the complex including the two havelis were
held to be in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-respondent.
Two
cross appeals were filed before the District Judge, Kapurthala. The appeal of
the State of Punjab was dismissed but the cross appeal
of the plaintiff respondent was allowed. The plaintiff-respondent succeeded in
having the suit decreed in entirety. The findings of the trial court on the
questioned issues nos. 5 and 8 were reversed and a mandatory injunction was
issued calling, upon the defendant- State to hand over the possession of the
double storeyed building, in 949 dispute to tile plaintiff, ,is well as
affirming, restraining the State from interfering in the possession of the
plaintiff of properties in other part of the Jallowkhana complex. Obedience to
tile mandatory injunction was conditioned in terms that since the Government
offices were functioning in the double storeyed building since long the same
may be vacated by the Government as and when suitable accommodation is made
available for such offices, and till then the plaintiff and the State
Government were suggested to mutually settle reasonable rent to be paid by the
State Government for use and occupation till the Government vacated it.
Two
separate second appeals were filed by the State of Punjab in the High Court but those were
dismissed by means of the common judgement under appeal. At the outset notice
in the special leave petitions was issued by this Court limited to the question
of the double storeyed building. In the mean time parties were permitted to
tile additional documents as existing on the trial court file, which were
filed. Leave was then granted limited to the property referred to in the
notice. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, it was felt that a
report be called for from the Sub-Judge Kapurthala as to whether the Deorhi,
through which was the common entrance. was in possession of the State
Government and whether it needed repairs. He was also required to report
whether the deori is the main entrance to the double storeyed building in
dispute or whether the main entrance to the said building was from another
route. The Sub-Judge has reported that the Deorhi in question is in possession
of Brigadier Sukhjit Singh-respondent and it is beyond repairs. He has further
intimated that presently the Deorhi is not the main entrance to the double storeyed
building, but on site a distinct 16 ft. wide path has been provided as main
entrance to the double storeyed building.
The
additional documents in the form of photographs of the deori and the site plan
Ex.R-7 showing its location go to show that the entrance to the Deorhi is
blocked by closing its gate and knitted by barbed wire, and the main entrance
to the double storeyed building shifted perpendicularly from across direction.
This is the fact situation.
The
case in the courts below has proceeded on the footing that the double storeyed
building is part of Jallowkhana complex. Besides, not only does the
afore-depiction establish, it has also been found otherwise by the courts below
that the double storeyed building was and is part of the Jallowkhana complex.
It is in the Jallowkhana complex that the two historic havelis, namely Haveli
Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal are situated and for all these buildings there
was a common entrance through a Deorhi which has now fell in dis-use and that
now a separate passage stands provided at site to reach the double storeyed
building which is perpendicularly cross to the passage from the deori. It is
also clear that the claim of the plaintiff that the double storeyed building in
occupation of' the State of 950 Punjab was part and parcel of the jallowkhana
complex stands established and that the court-., except the trial court, have
held it to be in tile ownership of the plaintiff- respondent: hut the trial
court has field that the plaintiff-respondent had lost ownership due to the
occupation of the State of Punjab "because of lapse of time". The
title to the Jallowkhana complex comprising of the two historic havelies and
other open places and structures, excluding the double storeyed building has
been put beyond dispute and the plaintiff-respondent is held to be the owner
thereof and conversely tile State has been held to he not its owner. This is
the effect of the limited leave granted. Thus the limited question on which
this appeal survives is should the double storeyed building he retrieved from
that complex and held to he owned by the State as held by the trial court'? Mr.
Kapil Sibal learned Senior Advocate for the appellant- State contended that firstly the double storeyed
building was not part of the Jallowkhana complex, secondly even if it was so. the
State of Punjab had become its owner by adverse
possession, and thirdly the same was not the property of the
plaintiff-respondent since it is not included in the list of personal
properties of the Ruler at the time of merger.
Much
argument before (lie courts below and particularly before the High Court was
centered around the construction of a Farman of the ruler of the State made on
28th Magh Samvat 1981, equivalent approximately to 13th February 1925 A.D. It's
original in Urdu in English Alphabets followed by, its English translation is
given hereafter URDU VERSION "Nakal Az Asal mashmoola misal no. 1020
confidential record Kapurthala State.
Minjanib
Jagatjit Singh Maharaj Kapurthala. Apne sab pisaraan ko apni Oudh (wagia subajat
mutahida) ki jaidad bataur hiba hissa rasadi de chuka hoonuske baad yeh hukam sadar
kiyajaata hai keh mere baad Tikka Sahib Raja Paramjit Singh bataur haqooq wali ahad
meri tamam jaidad bakaya har kisam ka wahid maalik banega. Aur isi tareh se yeh
laazam hoga keh har aanewala wali ahad ahluwalia khandan ki rawayat ke madenazar
Ahluwalia khaandan ki tawarikhi hawelian waqia Kapurthala, BabaJassa Singh Haveli
aur Nihal Mahal mausooma bataur Jallowkhana ka bhi maalik wa kaabiz reh kar is imarat
ki tawarikhi haisiyat aur ehtaram ko kaim rakhega jo imarat wabasta hain, taake
Ahluwalia missal ka chirag ta-doam is imarat mein roshan reheh. Aur is imarat ki
malkiat wa kaubaziyat bhi meri deegar jaidao se ilahida tassawar ki jakar bahaq
har anewala wali ahad ke haq men mansoob hogi.
Lihaza
tehrir hiza bataur yaad-daasht ke likh kar rakh 951 di hai ki indul haajit kaam
awe. Fakat tehrir 28 Magh Samvat 1981.
Daskhat
Beharoofd Urdu (Jagatjit Singh) Maharaja Kapurthala Bamai Mohar" ENGLISH
TRANSLATION "Copy of the original on file no. 1020.Confidential Record Kapurthala
State.
On the
part of Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Kapurthala. To all my sons I have already
gifted. in accordance with their respective shares, my properties in Oudh
(situate in United Provinces), After that it is ordained that after me Tikka
Sahib (heir apparent) Raja Paramjit Singh by his right of primogeniture would
become the sole owner of my entire remaining properties. In the same manner it
would be obligatory on each succeeding heir apparent, keeping in view the
traditions of the Ahluwalia family, to be also owning and possessing the
historic havelis of Ahluwalia dynasty situated at Kapurthala, Haveli Baba Jassa
Singh and Nihal Mahal, known as Jallowkhana, maintaining its historic character
and respect which is connected to this structure, so that the lamp of the Ahluwalia
dynesty is kept alight in this structure perpetually. Further the ownership and
possession of this structure be also treated separate from my other properties,
and this shall vest in favour of each succeeding heir apparent. Therefore, this
writing is made and kept for record to be put to use whenever necessary.
Date
of ordaining 28th Magh Samvat 1981 (13-2-1925 A.D. approximately) Signature in
Urdu Jagatjit Singh Maharaja Kapurthala and Seal." We have done the
exercise to translate the Farman ourselves, for we found that the translations
done by the courts below at various points, were not happily worded. Urdu, for
decades, was once the official language in that part of the country and had
remained court language, even after the independence, till State languages took
over. We thought it appropriate to put the matter in the right perspective,
since the Farman had to here adasa whole and then construed, to meet the
challenge of Mr. Sibal.
Now it
is beyond doubt that the ruler of an Indian State was in the position of a
sovereign and his command was the law.
His Farman
had the strength and potency of law made by an elected legislature and his
acts, administrative or executive, were sovereign in character. The Farman
above referred to has 952 necessarily to be imported with those attributes.
When read as a whole it reveals three important factors:
(1)The
historic havelis namely, Haveli Baba jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal, which had
commonly come to be known as Jallowkhana was not those buildings alone but the
entire structure or complex containing those palaces.
appurtenances,
and open spaces as part of its fortification, otherwise Jallowkhana would not
have been referred to in singular, when the palaces were referred to in plural.
(2)the
complex as an integrated whole was ordained to be neither State property nor
the personal property of the Ruler. It's ownership and possession in the hands
of each succeeding heir apparent by primogeniture was demised perpetually so as
to keep the name of the Ahluwalia dynasty perpetuated in the Jallowkhana as
such. It is in the singular sense that it was ordained that its historic
character and respect to the fortification shall be maintained to keep the
family flame alight, and
(3)the
structure known as Jallowkhana was to have a separate and special proprietary
status in as much as it was thenceforth to remain neither the separate property
of the ruler nor that of the State but a property settled on a titleholder for
keeping the family name alive perpetually and vesting it in each succeeding
heir apparent by the rule of primogeniture.
It was
in the nature of an impersonal estate as opposed to private property or private
estate.
Now
creating such kind of a special estate undeniably was within the Competence of
the ruler. His creative dimension and imaginative skill need not have conformed
to any set standards or patterns known to jurisprudence or law. His sovereign
will could have been expressed in various innovations. And this is an instance
in which he put his sentiment, attached to the complex, at a pedestal at which
it was neither to be treated as State property nor personal property either for
him or in the hands of the succeeding heirs apparent in the line of
primogeniture. It's ownership and possession in the hands of each succeeding
heir apparent was devised as purposive, for perpetually keeping its integrity
and the name of the Ahluwalia dynasty alive, the Jallowkhana structure symbolising
such continuance by its special status and reverence.
Once
it is held that Jallowkhana complex is one integrated property, the argument of
Mr. Sibal to the contrary is of no substance. Whatever is composed thereof is Jallowk
ban a.
There
cannot be two owners to such property. The property must remain with the heir
apparent. The State of Punjab cannot partially be an heir 953 apparent. On the
other hand when the plaintiff-respondent terms the State of Punjab as a
licensee, his plea cannot be negatived on the mere plea that no licence fee was
agreed to be paid. Payment of licence fee is not an essential attribute for the
subsistence of a licence.The mere fact that the licence is of long duration
dating back to the year 1925, as suggested by some of the plaintiff's
witnesses, or of 1947 as said by the witnesses of the State, is of no
consequence. Permissive possession, however long cannot by itself be said to
have become hostile by a "Iong lapse of time", more so, on property,
the nature and character of which is unique and singular, having attributes of
being impersonal. Such status of the property rules out the second objection of
Mr. Sibal regarding adverse possession for which even an issue was not claimed
in the courts below keeping apart the pleadings. Thirdly for the ruler having
not listed Jallowkhana complex as part of his personal properties at the time
of merger, is for the reason that it was not his personal property.
Thus
not agreeing with Mr. Sibal we go on to hold that title to the double storeyed
building in question could not be divested from the plaintiff due to the unique
and singular character of the property, it having attributes of being
impersonal, as also by mere lapse of time, or on account of non-payment of any licence
fee or rent, or on adverse possession, for which there is no plea, as well as
the property in dispute being an integral part of a complex, to which complex
the claim of the State to its ownership has failed, and finally hold that the
ruler on merger of his State need not have claimed this to be his personal
property to maintain the instant suit and seek relief. This determination leads
us to hold that the State of Punjab has no title to the disputed property and
hence must obey the mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court as
confirmed by the High Court. We, however, go on to observe that the mandatory
injunction granted by the lower appellate court is so weakly worded that it is
capable of being evaded totally, and in any event for a very long time to the
point of negating it. In any case the injunction has to be carried out within a
reasonable time. Thus, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we
have thought it fit to fix a reasonable time for its obedience. Let the
mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court be carried out in its
entirety, latest by the end of three years, if not earlier, and on the breach
of which the law may take its own course.
With
these observations, we dismiss the appeals. In the circumstances, the parties
shall bear their own costs.
G.N.
Appeals dismissed.
Back