Author- Yashashvini Singh Jodha
*This article is meant purely for pulp entertainment and should not be taken as a source of accurate information. It does not intend to hurt the sentiments of any person and any incorrect resemblance is purely coincidental and regretted. This article is a result of the author’s personal reflections and does not reflect this blog’s position on any political, legal or social issue, whether sub judice or not.
India is known for its history of rulers and their entourage. Each princely family had its own amassed wealth in the form of land, gold, forts and palaces. When the Indian state came into being, these princely states were merged with the public and their land was taken by measures such as the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Ceiling Act and the very first Zamindari Abolition Act. Out of the 500 princely states and their royal’s descendants, few managed to escape this merger unscathed. Documents got lost in translation; properties got taken before insurance could be calculated. Although the government provided compensation, the implementation was poor enough to create huge gaps in ownership rights. While some families managed to create successful business and trusts out of their property such as the maharaja of Jodhpur, some of the more outstanding cases involve family pitted against family for huge amounts of money.
Despite all their power being stripped from them, royal families are still treated with the same amount of love and reverence in most parts of the country, especially in Rajasthan. These families are descendants of big names in Indian history who owned most of India’s wealth and property as their own. The advent of land reform measures with poor implementation led to the following high profile court cases which this paper discusses.
Gaekwad’s of Baroda : Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors V. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad[1]
This was a case embroiled with questions of company law and the dispute lay with regards to shares which had been formed out of the family assets.
Sir Pratapsinh Rao Gaekwad, the Ruler of Baroda and his wife Maharani Shantadevi Gaekwad had eight children. The estate of Gaekwad came into the hands of their elder son, Fatehsinhrao P. Gaekwad during the lifetime of Sir Pratapsinh. Fatehsinh floated several companies in 1958, three of which are Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (BRC), Gaekwad Investment Corporation Company Ltd. (GIC) and Alaukik Trading & Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Alaukik). Members of the Gaekwad family were the major shareholders in all three companies. After Fatehsinh died in 1988 without any direct heir, his younger brother Ranjitsinh took over the throne. It is much later that the youngest son of Pratapsingh and Ranjitsingh’s brother, Sangramsingh took to the court. The dispute became laden with business transactions once GIC began facing loss and BRC had to sell its shares to them in order to support the losses.
Matters of company law take precedence over family law in this case however the dispute remained between the 20 odd members of the Gaekwad line with the first respondent Shantadevi claiming ownership of 8000 shares due to her being a Class I heir of Fateshsinh. While Section 15 of the HSA did empower her with the rights of a class I heir, the appellants contended that the dispute was pre-2005 and Section 5 (2) would not prevail over the rules of primogeniture. The court did not comment on this argument however it said: “A dispute as regard right of inheritance between the parties is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression of minority shareholders by the majority shareholders and/ or mismanagement.” Eventually, the city court accepted a memorandum signed by 23 members of the Gaekwad royal family to end their feud of 23 years.
Ranjitsinh Gaekwad’s son, Samarjitsinh, retained the family’s landmark property, Lakshmi Vilas Palace, and 600 acres around it; while his uncle Sangramsinh got Indumati Palace, a majority of the family’s residential properties in Mumbai and Vadodara and real estate owned under Alaukik Trading Company, including bungalows and Nazarbaug Palace.[2]
Varama’s of Travancore : Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda v. Union Of India[3]
One of the more interesting cases is the story of the Travancore royal family’s property. The petitioner, in this case, was the younger brother of the last ruler of Travancore who died in 1991. Therefore, he claimed to be the “Ruler of Travancore” and claimed ownership, control and management of the great ancient temple in Kerala namely, the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple located at Trivandrum.
The questions before the court were regarding the meaning of the term ruler contained in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter called “the TC Act). The judgment concludes that the term was used “only to give effect to the provision in the Accession Agreement whereby the Ruler of Travancore wanted to retain control of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple during his lifetime. In the absence of any provision in the Covenant or in the TC Act to vest the Temple in the next senior member of the Royal Family after the death of the Ruler of Travancore, the Temple and its properties and assets will revert back and vest in the State Government under Articles 295 or 296 of the Constitution.” Essentially, it allowed state law to take precedence over alleged inheritance rights.
“When there is no provision in the TC Act for succession of management from the Ruler of Travancore on death of the Ruler, the provisions of law will take over the situation.”[4]
More importantly, in the matter of the disputed temple, the court said that while the temple was run by the last ruler (Sri Chithira Varama) from 1931 to 1949 and then managed by him till his death in 1991, it was never considered the private property of the ruler. It was always treated as a public temple until the merger of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin. Varama never claimed the property as ancestral, individual or, as a joint family temple. In a suit for partition filed by his family member, he refuted the existence of any joint family property and even in his own will did not include the temple. Eventually, the court followed the TC Act which referred to the temple as ” vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore” which meant that it was meant for the benefit of somebody else, in this case, the devotees.
History of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple[5] :
Sree Padmanabhaswamy is the tutelary deity of the royal family of Travancore while the current titular Mahraja Moolam Varama is the trustee of the temple. The wealth inside is claimed to be running from centuries as a “donation” to God. The family has long since renounced ownership and continues to maintain their Lord Vishnu as the real owner. They neither wished to open the kallaras (secret vaults) and account for the wealth nor do they wish to convert it into a museum in order to prevent capitalizing a holy temple. They simply hope for it to belong to nobody.[6]
However the vaults were opened by order of the Supreme Court in 2011. Out of the six vaults in the temple, vaults A, C, D, E and F were opened by order of the Supreme Court and reported findings include:
“A three-and-a-half feet tall solid pure golden idol of Mahavishnu, studded with hundreds of diamonds and rubies and other precious stones.[[7]36] 18-foot-long pure gold chain, a gold sheaf weighing 500 kg, a 36 kg (79 lb) golden veil, 1200 ‘Sarappalli’ gold coin-chains that are encrusted with precious stones, and several sacks filled with golden artifacts, necklaces, diadems, diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, gemstones, and objects made of other precious metals.[37][38][39][40] Ceremonial attire for adorning the deity in the form of 16-part gold anki weighing almost 30 kilograms, gold coconut shells studded with rubies and emeralds, and several 18th-century Napoleonic era coins were found amongst many other objects.[2]
In early 2012, an expert committee had been appointed to investigate these objects, which include lakhs of golden coins of the Roman Empire, that were found in Kottayam, in Kannur District.[41] Vault A contains an 800 kg hoard of gold coins dating to around 200 B.C, each coin priced at over ₹2.7 crore .[42]Also found was a pure Golden Throne, studded with hundreds of diamonds and other fully precious stones, meant for the 18-foot-long Deity.[43]
According to varying reports, at least three, if not more, solid gold crowns have been found, studded with diamonds and other precious stones.[44][45][46]Some other media reports also mention hundreds of pure gold chairs, thousands of gold pots and jars, among the articles recovered from Vault A and its antechambers.[47] “[8]
There is also the mystery of Vault B which is blocked by and iron door and a snake, considered an ill omen, Records state it has most likely remained unopened since the 1800’s and maybe infested with cobras. The question of opening it is an ongoing debate considering the death of the man who contested in court the opening of the vaults in the first place.
This makes the Travancore temple the richest holy ground in the world. ”It is conservatively estimated that the value of the monumental items is close to ₹1.2 lakh crore or ₹1.2 trillion (US$18 billion). If the antique and cultural value were taken into account these assets could be worth ten times the current market price.” [9]
Fardidkot : Rajkumari Amrit Kaur V. Maharani Deepinder Kaur[10]
The dispute in the Faridkot property is a classic family dispute. The maharaja Harinder Singh Brar was said to have willed away his property in 1982 after depression on the death of his only son. In this Will, he did not include his three daughters. Instead, he transferred all rights and created the Maharawal Khewaji Trust of which the chairpersons were his two younger daughters, Mahipinder and Deepinder. In 1992, after the contents of the Will were made public, Amrit, the oldest daughter of the Raja contested that the will was fraudulent. The Chandigarh sessions court agreed with her contention and declared the Rs. 20,000 crore properties in the name of Amrit and Deepinder. Deepinder who was the head of the Trust appealed against this verdict and lost while another nephew of the Raja contested the rule of primogeniture in the division of the Faridkot property.
The questions for the court included A) establishing whether the property willed by the raja was self-acquired or ancestral B) Whether the will was fraudulent or not. If they were self-acquired, the will and the trust would hold. If ancestral and the will is proven fraud, inheritance laws may apply. The verdict on 25th July 2013, wrote: “The Maharaja had submitted a list of his properties, which was accepted by the Union government, and these properties were deemed ancestral as well as individual properties, subject to the law of inheritance under the law of the land — the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, such inheritance cannot be governed by primogeniture.”[11] Thereby, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was entitled to 1/4th of the property. This was because the mother of the raja was still alive at the time of his death. [12]
The total wealth of the Faridkot includes eleven properties and forts, Rs. 1000 crore worth of jewellery and 19 vintage cars.
Jaipur :Maharaja Jagat Singh vs Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh [13]
In this case, it was the Will of the late Maharani Gayatri Devi who died in 2009 which led to the dispute. The Maharani had left her estate (which was part of the Jaipur royal family estate) through will to her two grandchildren settled in Bangkok. It was her stepsons and their sons who challenged this division claiming primogeniture and invalidity of the will. The verdict in 2017 questioned their locus-standi of the stepsons by looking into the definition under section 15-1(a) of the HSA. It stated that Rajmata Gayatri Devi had only her two grandchildren as legitimate class I heirs of her pre-deceased son Jagat Singh. She had full ownership rights over the estate and the stepsons could only inherit as heirs of the husband under clause (b) of section 15, HSA and not as heirs to Gayatri Devi. Jagat Singh’s will was also contested however the courts maintained that Gayatri Devi’s grandchildren would inherit regardless, by virtue of being her intestate heirs.
The property disputed included their father Jagat Singh’s shares in Jai Mahal Hotels (99.9 per cent), Ram Bagh Palace Hotels (25 per cent), Sawai Madhopur Lodge (10 per cent) and SMS Investment Corporation (15 per cent).[14]
Wadiyars of Mysore[15]
This property dispute between a family (long since believed to be cursed) and the government, has been an ongoing battle beginning in 1950 and finally ending in 2015. The last Maharaja of Mysore, Jayamaraja Wadiyar signed an agreement with the Indian government in 1949 which recognized the royal family property as the Maharaja’s private property in exchange for his surrender to the Indian state. With the abolishment of privy purses also came the declaration that private property owners would not be affected. However, in 1996, the government of Karnataka passed the Bangalore Palace Acquisition Act. This coupled with the introduction of the Urban land ceiling act 1976 began to restrain the royal family. Soon, a part of the Mysore palace was also taken over by the state for maintenance. On a plea by Srikantadatta Wadiyar, the court ruled that it be returned.[16] In return, the state filed the Mysore Palace Acquisition Act 1988. The latest heir Yaduveer Wadiyar now faces a battle against the government as well as a case filed by another one of Srikantadatta’s nephews Krishnraj Urs, rejecting his inheritance and demanding partition.
Mysore’s assets are deemed to be worth Rs. 80,000 crore. [17]
Conclusion
Land reforms which directly affect land owners such as the land ceiling act have been implemented differently in different states. Rajasthan has a higher limit depending on the number of family members and a different ceiling when it comes to agricultural land as well. Kerala through the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 abolished the recognition of Hindu undivided joint family in court and regarded family members as tenants in common.
The question that comes to picture is whether the succession laws and systems we have in place are actually effective; whether they are able to beat age old custom or patriarchal norms. The answer is not conclusive. We still have absurdities like Waqf Boards claiming title to the Taj Mahal, caste playing a major role in land holdings, women committing “haq tyag”[18] despite the law providing them with equal rights. Royal families such as the ones mentioned above have been fighting over their legacy for decades and some like the descendants of Tipu Sultan and Bahadur Shah Zafar live in slums. If the blotchy past cannot be fixed, the future rights of the people should not become a sacrilege. Arbitration and mediation can be the quickest way of helping clogged justice dispensation. One could then hope to hear less disheartening cases of land lying wasted and the historically valuable property being traded.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Appeal (civil) 6359 of 2001
[2] Reporter BS, “Vadodara’s Gaekwad Royal Family Settles Rs 20,000-Cr Property Dispute” (Business StandardOctober 25, 2013) <http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/vadodara-s-gaekwad-royal-family-settles-rs-20-000-cr-property-dispute-113102401002_1.html> accessed April 27, 2018
[3] WP(C).No. 4256 of 2010(O)
[4] Ibid n. 3
[5] Venkatesan J, “No Claim on Temple Wealth, Marthanda Varma Tells Court” (The HinduJuly 8, 2011) <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-claim-on-temple-wealth-marthanda-varma-tells-court/article2210758.ece> accessed April 27, 2018
[6] Times PRSH, “’The Riches Belong to Nobody, Certainly Not to Our Family’” (https://www.hindustantimes.com/July 9, 2011) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/the-riches-belong-to-nobody-certainly-not-to-our-family/story-sxNJ3VdUr5aqG8g1xWGj8M.html> accessed April 27, 2018l
8] “Padmanabhaswamy Temple” (WikipediaApril 25, 2018) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmanabhaswamy_Temple> accessed April 27, 2018
[9] Prakash (3 July 2011). “India Today Kerala’s Padmanabha temple treasure 120000 crore”. India Today. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
[10] 2002 (1) RCR (Civil) 284
[11] “PRINCESS vs SISTER vs COUSIN” (The Telegraph) <https://www.telegraphindia.com/1130826/jsp/nation/story_17273583.jsp> accessed April 27, 2018
[12] Tribune News Service, “HC Stays Lower Court Order in Faridkot Royal Property Dispute” (Tribuneindia News ServiceMarch 14, 2018) <http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/hc-stays-lower-court-order-in-faridkot-royal-property-dispute/557495.html> accessed April 27, 2018
[13] 11365/2010 IN CS (OS) 870/1
[14] “Jaipur’s Happy Prince – Legal Win after Battle Royale with Uncles” (The Economic TimesOctober 2, 2015) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/jaipurs-happy-prince-legal-win-after-battle-royale-with-uncles/articleshow/49190525.cms> accessed April 27, 2018
[15] Kumar RK, “It’s a Long-Standing Dispute” (The HinduAugust 2, 2014) <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/its-a-longstanding-dispute/article6275601.ece> accessed April 27, 2018
[16] TNN, “Kantharaj Urs Seeks His Share of Royal Property – Times of India” (The Times of IndiaMarch 12, 2015) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mysuru/Kantharaj-Urs-seeks-his-share-of-royal-property/articleshow/46547532.cms> accessed April 27, 2018
[17] Balachandran M and Punit IS, “How a 400-Year-Old Curse Continues to Haunt One of India’s Richest Royal Families” (QuartzMay 29, 2015) <https://qz.com/414978/how-a-400-year-old-curse-continues-to-haunt-one-of-indias-richest-royal-families/> accessed April 27, 2018
[18] “This Tradition Is Forcing Rajasthan Women To Let Go Of Family Property” (Everylifecounts.NDTV.comMarch 23, 2017) <https://everylifecounts.ndtv.com/this-tradition-is-forcing-rajasthan-women-to-let-go-of-family-property-2-6562> accessed April 27, 2018
19. “Dispossession without Development” (Google Books) <https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Y5NODwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT97&dq=rajputana states and land ceiling&pg=PT113#v=onepage&q=rajputana states and land ceiling&f=false> accessed April 27, 2018
20. Faleiro DMS, “The Fall and Rise of a Modern Maharaja” (com January 21, 2016) <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/royal-palaces-maharaja-culture-india-180957796/> accessed April 27, 2018
30. “Http://Ljournal.ru/Wp-Content/Uploads/2017/03/a-2017-023.Pdf”
31. Inamdar N, “An Inheritance of Lawsuits – India’s Top 5 Battles Royale” (Business StandardOctober 26, 2013) <http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/an-inheritance-of-lawsuits-india-s-top-5-battles-royale-113102600159_1.html> accessed April 27, 2018
31. Kodoth P, “Gender, Family and Property Rights” (2001) 8 Bulletin (Centre for Women’s Development Studies) 291
32. Kumar RK, “It’s a Long-Standing Dispute” (The HinduAugust 2, 2014) <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/its-a-longstanding-dispute/article6275601.ece> accessed April 27, 2018
33. “Land Reforms in India: Objectives, Measures and Impact” (Economics DiscussionDecember 19, 2015) <http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/land-reforms-2/land-reforms-in-india-objectives-measures-and-impact/14176> accessed April 27, 2018.
About The Law 