Rule Of Primogeniture Limited To Throne, Doesn't Apply To Private Properties Of Erstwhile Rulers; Personal Law Governs Succession: Supreme Court

"Covenant preserved the rule of primogeniture only in respect of succession to the Gaddi (throne) but in no way guaranteed this in respect of the private personal properties of the Maharaja; they were required to devolve according to the ordinary personal law then in force." Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling dated May 27, 2026, has clarified that the customary rule of primogeniture—where the eldest son inherits the entire estate—is strictly confined to the succession of the 'Gaddi' (throne) and ceremonial titles of erstwhile rulers.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held that the private properties declared by a ruler at the time of merger with the Indian Union lose their "impartible" character and must devolve according to the personal law of succession applicable to the parties.

The dispute arose within the erstwhile royal family of Kapurthala between Brigadier Sukjit Singh, the recognized ruler, and his estranged wife and children. While the Brigadier claimed absolute ownership of all family properties based on the rule of primogeniture, his family sought a partition, contending the properties were ancestral coparcenary assets. The High Court had previously ruled in favor of the Brigadier, holding that the rule of primogeniture prevailed, leading to the present appeal before the Top Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the private properties of an erstwhile ruler of a Princely State are governed by the rule of primogeniture or by personal law (Hindu Law) after the merger. The court also considered whether the recognition of a "Ruler" under the Constitution or the terms of the merger covenant protected the impartibility of private personal estates.

Distinction Between Sovereignty And Private Ownership

The Court observed that upon the signing of the merger covenant in 1948, the Maharaja of Kapurthala ceased to be an absolute sovereign and assumed the status of an ordinary citizen of India. The bench noted that while the President of India recognized the Maharaja as a "Ruler" for ceremonial purposes and privy purses, such recognition was not an "indicium of ownership of property."

Ruler Becomes Ordinary Citizen For Property Purposes Post-Merger

The judges emphasized that the private properties declared in the inventory furnished to the Government became the personal assets of the individual. "The covenant nowhere provided that such private and personal properties declared by the Maharaja would be governed by the rule of primogeniture," the bench observed.

Rule Of Primogeniture Confined To The 'Gaddi'

Relying on the terms of the 1948 Covenant, the Court highlighted that Article XIV guaranteed succession according to custom only to the 'Gaddi' and personal rights or titles. It did not extend this guarantee to private personal properties. The Court held that Gaddi and private properties are "two distinct connotations" and one does not automatically include the other for the purposes of succession.

Custom Of Primogeniture Does Not Attach To Private Personal Estates

"The findings that the rule of primogeniture would prevail in the succession of properties is illegal and is unsustainable in law," the bench held while setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court clarified that once properties are earmarked as personal, they lose their sovereign character and are subject to the ordinary rules of succession and taxation.

Applicability Of Personal Law And Precedents

The Court placed heavy reliance on three-judge bench decisions in the Travancore, Rampur, and Faridkot cases. It noted that the decision in Maharani Deepinder Kaur (Faridkot Case) established that the concept of an impartible state disappeared with the merger. The bench noted that the private properties of an ordinary citizen must devolve according to the personal law then in force, which in this case was the Hindu Mitakshara Law.

Three-Judge Bench Decisions Supersede Conflicting Division Bench Views

Addressing a conflicting Division Bench ruling in Trijugi Narain, the Supreme Court held that as a matter of judicial discipline, the three-judge bench decisions in Talat Fatima Hasan and Maharani Deepinder Kaur must prevail. The Court noted that the earlier view failed to appreciate that the cessation of sovereignty necessitates the application of personal law over customary primogeniture for private assets.

Succession Opened Before Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The bench specifically addressed the timeline of devolution, noting that Maharaja Jagatjit Singh died in 1949. Since the Hindu Succession Act was not in force then, the succession opened under the ordinary personal law applicable at that time. Consequently, Section 5(ii) of the Act, which exempts certain estates descending to a single heir from the Act's purview, was held to be inapplicable to the present dispute.

Section 5(ii) Of Hindu Succession Act Not Applicable To Pre-1956 Devolution

The Court concluded that the properties, including the Mussoorie Estate and the Villa at Kapurthala, were liable for partition. It noted that several properties were already held in joint names or purchased from the nucleus of ancestral funds, further strengthening the claim for division among the legal heirs.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's 2010 judgment. It ordered the drawing of a preliminary decree of partition, awarding the surviving son and daughters their respective shares in the properties according to the Hindu Law of succession. The ruling solidifies the principle that royal status does not exempt private property from the democratic and legal standards of personal inheritance law.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2026