The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a special provision in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes certain estates of former royal families from the purview of being partitioned under the Act, remains valid despite abolition of privy purses and royal privileges more than five decades ago through the amendments to the Constitution of India.
“Articles 291 (privy purse sums of rulers) and 362 (rights and privileges of rulers of Indian States) were only with respect to guarantees and assurances made by the Dominion of India with regard to payment of privy purse, personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of erstwhile rulers of princely States of India and not with respect to their personal private properties and Gaddi, impartible estate,” the court said.
Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order while dismissing the petitions filed in 2015 by Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs, a grandson of Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, who was the last ruler of the princely State of Mysore, and Venkatrao Y. Ghorpade and Gayatri Ghorpade, son and daughter, respectively, of Yeshwantrao Ghorpade, the erstwhile Maharaja of Sandur.
On Section 5(ii)
The petitioners had sought the deletion of Section 5(ii) from the statute book while contending that this provision has lost its relevance with the passage of time and due to the abolition of Articles 291 and 362. It has no nexus with the object which was initially sought to be achieved. Further, the very concept of Gaddi has lost its meaning and purport, the petitioners had claimed.
The petitions arose from the issues in the civil suits between members of the erstwhile Mysore and Sandur royal families over property partition as some family members, including Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, invoked Section 5(ii) to argue that certain estates inherited by a sole heir under pre-Independence agreements were impartible.
Rejecting these contentions of the petitioners, the court held that the deletion of Articles 291 and 362 and insertion of Article 363-A by the 26th amendment to the Constitution has no bearing on the validity or otherwise of Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act.
Section 5(ii) states that “provisions of the Act are not applicable to any estate which 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 or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act”.
The court examined the merger agreements of the former States of Mysore and Sandur with the Government of India, and found that they separately dealt with three issues — privy purses, private properties and succession to the Gaddi. While the Constitution removed guarantees relating to privy purses and privileges through Article 363-A, it did not disturb arrangements concerning private properties or succession to the ceremonial throne, that is, the Gaddi.
Customary perspective
On relevance of Section 5(ii) of the Act, the court said that “determination of issue with regard to succession to private properties as well as to impartible estate is still a relevant subject. It may be that purport and object of Gaddi has lost its relevance but from the customary practical perspective it is still a relevant subject”.
Referring to the apex court’s verdicts, Justice Kamal made it clear that after the signing of the merger agreement and notification of certain properties as the personal private properties of rulers, only the perceived throne would devolve according to the rule of primogeniture, and not the personal private properties of the ruler.
