State Of Rajasthan vs Sawai Tej Singhji Bahadur Of Alwar
2002 Latest Caselaw 38 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

1. Respondent His Highness Sir Sawai Tej Singhji Bahadur Maharaja of Alwar filed suit for recovery of Rs. 9,45,000/- with interest, inter alia, on the ground that when he was the Ruler, he had created Baijilal Marriage fund for the marriages of princeses. The said marriage fund was opened with the deposit of Rs. 45,000/-. Subsequently he ordered for the transfer of Government securities to the value of Rs. 9 lacs to the said Baijilal Marriage Fund. This order was passed in the last week of January, 1948 at that time he was still the Ruler of Alwar. He handed over the order to Dr. N.B. Khare (The then Prime Minister of Alwar) and asked him to transfer a sum of Rs. 9 lacs in the marriage fund in addition to amount of Rs. 45,000/- already lying in the fund. After the State was taken over by the Government of India he asked for the refund of this amount lying in "Marriage Fund," Government of India sanctioned the same but the respondent failed rather declined to refund this amount hence he filed the suit for recovery. It was contested by the State of Rajasthan on various grounds. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge after dealing with each and every aspect of the matter and also the evidence produced by the parties, decreed the suit for a sum of recovery of Rs. 13,98,275/-with future interest on Rs. 9 lacs at the rate of 6% during the pendency of the suit. However on the suggestion of learned Single Judge, State of Rajasthan had paid back Rs. 45,000/- plus interest amounting to Rs. 1,34,401/- on 11th March, 1979.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned decree," present appeal was preferred in September, 1977, inter alia, on the grounds that respondent herein had based his claim on the basis of the order passed by him for transfer of Government securities amounting to Rs. 9 lacs to "Baijilal Marriage Fund" but failed to produce the said written order. In the absence of written order adverse inference ought to have been drawn that the said amount of Rs. 9 lacs was never transferred to the "Marriage Fund." Moreover as admitted by the witnesses the said amount of Rs. 9 lacs had not been reflected in the account books. Shri Shobha Ram, Chief Minister, Matsya Union while appearing as witness stated that entry regarding Rs. 9 lacs was not reflected in the account books of the State. Moreover by agreement dated 15th May, 1949 arrived at between the Rulers of Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karauli the entire assets of the Matsya Union vested in the State of Rajasthan and inventory of the same was prepared. It was found that only Rs. 45,000/- were lying in the "Marriage Fund" account. Since no Government security had been set apart by the Ruler of Alwar nor such amount was credited in the said Baijilal Marriage Fund hence he was not entitled to the refund of such amount. If the said sum was set apart it would have been reflected in the books of accounts of the State. Moreover the alleged written order purported to have been written by the respondent thereby directing Dr. N.B. Khare (the then Prime Minister of Alwar) was highly improbable. Accountant General vide his letter dated 22nd August, 1951 informed Mr. V.B. Menon that in the account of former Alwar State pertaining to "Marriage Fund" a balance of Rs. 9 lacs was nowhere reflected. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. The point in issue is whether the respondent proved that he ordered for the transfer of Government securities to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs in the last week of January, 1948 to the "Marriage Fund." Learned Single Judge observed on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent that the respondent who was the Ruler of Alwar State before coming to Delhi passed an order for transferring of Government investments to the "Baijilal Marriage Fund" to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs. He handed over the written order to Dr. N.B. Khare who was the then Prime Minister of Alwar State. Dr. Khare appearing as witness reiterated and supported the statement of the respondent (herein). The State of Rajasthan even appointed Enquiry Committee headed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer and Law Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. The Enquiry Report went in favor of the respondent herein. The learned Single Judge rightly considered the report of Enquiry Officer as a corroborative piece of evidence which proved that a sum of Rs. 9 lacs was transferred to marriage fund. Learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the Government of India accepted claim of the Ruler (respondent herein) that in the Baijilal Marriage Fund he had set apart securities to time of Rs. 9 lacs in addition to the amount of Rs. 45,000/- already lying in that account. The observations of learned Single Judge for coming to this conclusion are based on the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff i.e. respondent herein beside supported by the report of Enquiry Officer which positively supported the version of the respondent (Ruler of the Alwar). The letter written by Shri. V.B. Menon on behalf of the Government of India which letter was not denied at any stage proved the case of the respondent herein that even Government of India sanctioned and confirmed the transfer of Rs. 9 lacs in the "Marriage Fund" and asked the State of Rajasthan, appellant herein to refund the same. The testimony of Sham Sunder Lal, the then Accountant General established the case of the respondent when he testified that the order was passed by the Ruler (respondent herein) in January, 1948 and the same was handed over to the them Prime Minister Dr. Khare. But before it could be implemented the Prime Minister and the Ruler were called to New Delhi by the Government of India. It was in this backdrop that the said order passed by the respondent as Ruler was not traceable. Dr. Khare, the then Prime Minister reiterated in his cross-examination that he took the order of the Ruler to his house. He kept it in a pad on the table. But before it could be implemented, he Along with the Ruler had to leave for New Delhi to attend the Constituent Assembly. He and the Ruler remained at New Delhi for three months, in the meantime the order which was kept by him in house could not be traced. In view of oral testimony of various witnesses produced by the respondent herein and which remained unrebutted and uncontroverter on record the learned Single Judge concluded that the amount of Rs. 9 lacs was transferred to the "Marriage Fund" account because as soon as the Ruler passed the order it came into force as the Ruler's order was the law of that land then. We see no reason to defer with the reasoning of learned Single Judge which is based on oral as well as documentary evidence.

4. The fact that the Ruler (respondent herein) passed the order was also corroborated by testimony of Mr. K.B. Lal, ICS who took over as the Administrator of Alwar State. He was present in the tripartite conference held at New Delhi. Mr. K.B. Lal admitted in the tripartite conference that the Maharaja of Alwar talked about his order of transfer of Government securities to Baijilal Marriage Fund prior to the date of Mr. K.B. Lal's taking over as Administrator of Alwar. Therefore, the stand of respondent that he had set apart the Government securities to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs for the "Marriage Fund" stood established. It was not Ruler's case that entries of this amount were made in the books of accounts of the State. As rightly observed by learned Single Judge, his claims stopped at the passing of the order of transfer of the amount to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs in the "Baijilal Marriage Fund" prior to the date of Administrator taking over the State of Alwar.

5. The arguments of the appellant herein that in the meeting of 9th and 10th April, 1949 no mention of Rs. 9 lacs was made has been aptly dealt with by the learned Single Judge. It has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that in the meeting of 9th and 10th April, 1949 even the mention of Rs. 45,000/- which admittedly was lying in the "Marriage Fund" was also not made nor discussed while considering the question of final inventory. The question of "Marriage Fund" was in fact separately discussed which is apparent from the letter written by Mr. V.B. Menon, Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 20th February, 1950, wherein he stated thus, "We are writing to the Government of Rajasthan to transfer this (Marriage) Fund to Your Highness". This letter was exhibited as PW 3. From the reading of this letter it stood established that respondent herein had a "Marriage Fund" which was not discussed or dealt with in the meetings held on 9th and 10th April, 1949. Hence the learned Single Judge rightly concluded that final inventory was to be read along with letter PW 3. Marriage Fund was actually recognised as part of private property of the Ruler. Therefore once the Ruler passed an order for transferring Government securities to the rune of Rs. 9 lacs the Ruler became entitled to receive the same back irrespective of the fact whether the entry of that amount was made in the accounts or not? In view of the overwhelming evidence available on record proving the order of transfer of Government securities to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs in the "Marriage Fund" we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge on this count.

6. As regards Mr. K.C. Mittal's objection that Union of India was a necessary party, we find no force in this submission. The amount had been illegally withheld by the State of Rajasthan and not by Union of India hence Union of India was not a necessary party. The State of Rajasthan kept the amount of Rs. 9 lacs in trust for the respondent herein and of his daughters hence appellant herein was the only necessary party rightly sued.

7. Since the convenant was entered at New Delhi and the decision about the marriage fund was also arrived at the tripartite conference at New Delhi, hence Court at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On this count also we find no merits in the submission of the Counsel for the appellant.

8. So far as the applicability of Article 363 of Constitution of India is concerned, we find that the said provision is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is an admitted fact on record that this appellant (defendant in the suit) offered to refer the claim of the respondent herein (plaintiff in suit) to the arbitration of a High Court fudge. The respondent herein declined this offer instead choose to file the suit. Question is whether the suit is barred by Clause XI of the Convenant and Article 363 of Constitution of India: We find that there was no dispute because decision was taken in the tripartite conference and the claim of respondent (plaintiff before the Single learned Judge) to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs was accepted as part of marriage fund. Therefore, the State of Rajasthan could not reject his claim. In fact from the perusal of white paper as well as evidence on record, learned Single Judge rightly concluded that all the disputes stood resolved between the Government and the States. To raise it as a dispute now as to go back on the decision taken in 1949. Once the Article 363 recognises this principle, the Municipal Courts could enforce the claim of the respondent. Therefore once the issue of private property of the respondent i.e. Ruler v. State property was settled and the property was given to Ruler as private property, any such property was held by him like any other private citizen and a dispute regarding such property could be entertained by Municipal Court. In the facts of this case, Article 363 of Constitution is not attracted. We find no force in the submission of Counsel for the appellant.

9. For the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment nor any merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.

10. We are told that the decretal amount has already been released in favor of the respondent subject to his furnishing a Bank guarantee, since the appeal has been dismissed, the Bank guarantee furnished by the respondent is ordered to be discharged. Order accordingly.