Primogeniture Ends With “Gaddi”, Not Private Property: Supreme Court Holds Former Ruler’s Personal Estates Devolve Under Personal Law

The Court ruled that once sovereignty ceased after accession and merger with the Dominion of India, such private properties devolved in accordance with ordinary personal law and later under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 rather than exclusively upon the eldest male heir.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti after referring to a catena of judgments on the subject matter, observed, “…clearly brings out a distinction between the personal and private properties of an erstwhile ruler, as declared by him under the covenant of merger/accession and those belonging to the State. All the aforesaid decisions also make it clear that the covenant of merger only protected the succession to the Gaddi and to the personal rights according to law and custom or by rule of primogeniture but not with regard to the properties declared to be the private properties inasmuch as after the merger the ruler became a citizen of the country but with certain privileges, and without any sovereign control over public properties or over the subjects. Therefore, the succession to such private ancestral properties must be in accordance with the personal law of the ruler and not as per any custom or rule of primogeniture”.

“…the properties declared to be the personal private properties of the ruler would devolve not according to the rule of primogeniture but according to the personal law, whether Muslim Law or Hindu Law”, the Bench further noted.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Nayyar appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates Santosh Paul, Dr. Arun Mohan and Raj Shekhar Rao appeared for the respondents.

The dispute was whether immovable properties declared as the Maharaja’s private properties under the covenant of merger continued to descend solely by the customary rule of male lineal primogeniture, or whether they devolved under ordinary Hindu succession law after the merger of princely States.

Drawing a distinction between succession to rulership and succession to personal property, the Court held that the merger covenant preserved the rule of primogeniture only in respect of succession to the Gaddi. It observed that Article XII of the covenant protected the ruler’s “full ownership, use and enjoyment” of private properties, as distinct from State properties, but did not guarantee continued inheritance of those properties through primogeniture.

The Bench noted that after accession, rulers ceased to exercise sovereign authority and assumed the legal status of ordinary citizens, though with certain personal privileges. Consequently, private properties declared by rulers under merger agreements could not be treated as perpetually insulated from ordinary succession law. The Court observed that such properties were liable to taxation, acquisition and succession in the same manner as properties of any other citizen.

The Court relied on Constitution Bench precedents including Visweshwar Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 SCR 1020 and Sudhansu Shekhar Singh Deo v. State of Orissa (1961) 1 SCR 779 to reiterate that merger covenants protected the ruler’s recognition over private property vis-à-vis the State but did not create perpetual proprietary immunity or preserve a special succession regime in derogation of personal law.

While considering the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Trijugi Narain (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors v. Sankoo (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1604, which had recognised continued applicability of primogeniture in the context of an impartible princely estate, the Bench held that the broader ratio of the three-Judge Bench decisions in Talat Fatima Hasan and Maharani Deepinder Kaur governed the field.

The Court clarified that the real legal question was not whether Muslim or Hindu personal law applied in isolation, but whether primogeniture itself survived post-merger so as to exclude ordinary succession law. It answered the question in the negative.

“…The question is not about the applicability of Personal Law, but rather whether the rule of primogeniture applies, thereby excluding Personal Law. The answer in the three-judge bench judgments is on the rule of primogeniture that the private properties held by the Nawab, upon cessation of sovereignty, would not automatically devolve upon his eldest, by applying the rule of primogeniture but would be governed by his personal laws, whether it happened to be Muslim or Hindu Personal Laws”, it noted.

The Court further examined Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes from the Act estates descending to a single heir by covenant. However, it held that the provision had no application in the present case because succession to the relevant estate had already opened in 1949, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. By the time the statute came into force, the properties had already assumed the character of private properties held by the ruler as an ordinary citizen.

Applying those principles, the Court held that the Mussoorie property, Kapurthala Chateau and St. Helens, being the only remaining immovable property declared as the Maharaja’s private property, would devolve under Hindu succession law and be partitioned equally among the surviving heirs.

As regards the Delhi properties at Greater Kailash and Surya Kiran, which stood in the joint names of Brigadier and Gita Devi and had admittedly been acquired from sale proceeds of ancestral Kapurthala properties, the Court directed division according to the shares flowing from succession under the Hindu Succession Act.

Similarly, with respect to Villa Bouna Vista at Kapurthala, standing in the names of the Maharaja’s sons, the Court determined shares on the basis of succession following the deaths of family members and directed partition accordingly.

“After the signing of the agreement of merger and notification of certain properties as the personal private properties of the Maharaja, only the perceived throne devolved according to the rule of primogeniture, but not the personal private properties of the ruler”, it concluded.

The Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal in part and directed that a preliminary decree for partition be drawn in accordance with the shares determined by it.

Cause Title: Tikka Shatrujit Singh & Ors. v. Sukjit Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 571)

Appearances:

Appellant: Nikhil Nayyar, Senior Counsel.

Respondents: Santosh Paul, Dr. Arun Mohan, Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Counsels.

Click here to read/download the Judgment