Hindu Succession Act, 1956: s. 5 – Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 – Succesion to the Properties left behind by the Raja , former ruler of Faridkot State – In 1948, the Raja entered into a Covenant with the Govt. of India and executed Instrument of Accession, as a result area forming part of Faridkot State became part of the Indian Union – In 1948, “Raja Faridkot Estate Act, 1948” was enacted by the Raja, declaring that the Estate of said Ruler would devolve to his male successor – Succession to the properties of the Raja which were shown to be private properties in the Covenant – Raja had three daughters and a son, who predeceased his father without leaving any heir – After the accession was complete, the Raja executed the first Will in 1950, bequeathing the specified properties to all three daughters in equal shares – In 1952, he executed second Will in favour of his two daughters excluding his eldest daughter – Three years later, the Ruler executed a registered settlement, however, unlike the Second will, the Settlement did not disinherit the eldest daughter – All three documents were executed before Hindu Successsion Act,1956 – Ruler died in 1989 – Third Will allegedly executed by the Ruler in the year 1982, came into picture which declared that the entire property would be inherited by a Trust, trustees of which would be his two daughters excluding the elder daughter – Suit by the younger brother of the Ruler, claiming the estate left behind by the Ruler on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture – Eldest daughter also filed suit for declaration that the eldest daughter was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the properties left behind by the Ruler; and that the alleged Third Will executed by the Ruler was invalid, void and unenforceable – Trial court held that the Third Will was not genuine; that the claim of the younger brother of the Ruler was not accepted however, the claim made by eldest daughter was accepted – Appeal thereagainst were dismissed – Matter before the High Court wherein the High Court held that the Rule of Primogeniture had no application; that the Will executed by the mother of the Ruler was proved beyond doubt on which reliance was placed by the younger brother; that the succession to the properties left behind by the Ruler would be governed by the personal law of succession; and that the third Will was a fabricated document –On appeal, held: In view of the specific finding rendered by the courts below, including the High Court, no case was made out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession based on said Rule – As regards, the Will executed by Mother of Ruler, once the Will was proved and found to have been validly executed, in terms of specific clauses in the Will, the share of mother of Ruler in the properties left behind by the Ruler would naturally be governed by the Will executed by the testatrix – Thus, findings by the High Court fully justified.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.