Article 363 Bars Suits on Jaipur Covenant Properties: Raj HC

Brief Facts

Under a covenant of 30.03.1949 between Sawai Man Singh-II, erstwhile ruler of Jaipur State, and the Union of India, a statement of private properties listed City Palace buildings for the Government to use and maintain (paras 2.2, 6, 36). Four suits sought possession and mesne profits for the Jaipur Accounts Offices and Treasury, the Rajendra Hazari Guards building, the Town Hall and property managed by a museum trust (paras 2-5). The claimants said the buildings were given on licence, the licence had ended and the State planned commercial use (paras 2.1, 5.3, 9). The trial courts refused to reject the plaints, calling jurisdiction a mixed question of fact and law (para 12).

Court's Findings

Under Order VII Rule 11, the court reads only the plaint and documents annexed to or relied on in it; a plaint clearly barred by law must be rejected at the threshold, without presuming a mixed question of fact and law (paras 23-24). A suit expressly or impliedly barred is outside the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC (paras 25-27). Relying on State of Seraikella and Karan Singh, the Court held that Article 363 excludes every court from disputes arising out of pre-Constitution covenants with rulers, the only exception being Article 143 (paras 29, 31-34). Talat Fatima Hasan, on succession, had no bearing, and the Jaipur rulings cited by the claimants did not concern that bar (paras 30, 35). Reading the covenant schedule relied on in the plaints, the Court found that the buildings were given to the State for official use and maintenance, are held neither on lease nor on licence, and cannot be put to commercial use (paras 37-39, 41). As the parties were the ruler's successors or beneficiaries and the State named in the covenant, Article 363 applied (para 48).

Legal Principle

Article 363 excludes the jurisdiction of all courts over disputes arising out of a pre-Constitution covenant between a ruler and the Government. A suit by the ruler's successors or beneficiaries against the State over covenant properties is barred by law, and its plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC (paras 27, 41, 48-49).

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Seraikella v. Union of India and Another AIR 1951 SC 253
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 32, 33
Article 363 overrides other provisions of the Constitution; courts have no jurisdiction over suits arising out of instruments executed before the Constitution, even suits pending at its commencement.
Karan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. MANU/SC/0332/2004
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8, 34
Any right arising out of or relating to a treaty, covenant or agreement mentioned in Article 363 is barred from determination by any court.
H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1971 SC 530
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33, 34
Relied on State of Seraikella; referred to in Karan Singh on the Article 363 bar.

View all precedents (42)

State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 4 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33
Relied on State of Seraikella on Article 363.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India (2011) 13 SCC 344
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33
Referred to State of Seraikella on Article 363.
Maharaj Umeg Singh and Others v. The State of Bombay and Others AIR 1955 SC 540
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33
Referred to State of Seraikella on Article 363.
State of Bihar v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1446
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33
Referred to State of Seraikella on Article 363.
Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors. (2020) 15 SCC 655
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 30
On rulership as distinct from a ruler's declared private properties and succession to them; held to have no bearing because no succession issue arose.
Jagat Singh v. The Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur S.B. CSA No. 12/1987 (order dated 07.09.1987), affirmed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2803/1989 (order dated 10.04.1995)
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 35
Proceeding found maintainable there, but it did not concern enforcement of rights under the covenant or the Article 363 bar.
Satish Kumar Pareek v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 7133/2004 (order dated 05.05.2008)
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 35
Proceeding found maintainable there, but it did not concern enforcement of rights under the covenant or the Article 363 bar.
Director of Estate, Jaipur v. Maharaja Brigadier Sawai Bhawani Singh Rajput through LRs and Ors. 2018 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 659
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 35
Cited by the plaintiffs; held not applicable because it did not concern enforcement of covenant rights or the Article 363 bar.
Director of Estate v. Maharaja Brigadier Sawai Bhawani Singh and Ors. MANU/RH/1278/2007, affirmed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1108/2008
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the State on the Article 363 bar.
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 14
A plaint that on a meaningful reading is manifestly vexatious and meritless should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11; an illusory cause of action created by clever drafting must be nipped in the bud.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) 3 SCC 137
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15
No court should let a plaintiff protract a suit that discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 15
No court should let a plaintiff protract a suit that discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16
Under clauses (a) and (d) only the plaint averments are germane; the written statement is irrelevant, and the power can be exercised at any stage.
Dahibhen v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 17, 18, 19
The power to reject a plaint is drastic and its conditions must be strictly followed; the court looks at the plaint and the documents relied on in it.
Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 20
A plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it is vexatious, shows an illusory cause of action or is barred by law.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
The power or jurisdiction of a court is legislative in character.
Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. v. Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
A decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged even in execution.
Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Paswan and Others AIR 1954 SC 340
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
A defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured by consent.
Abdulla Bin Ali v. Gullapa & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 54
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
Jurisdiction does not depend on the defence taken in the written statement.
Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bhai and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 475
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
On jurisdiction, regard must be had to the substance of the matter and not the form of the suit.
Bhanu Ram v. Janak Singh & Ors. 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 254
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 21
Cited by the plaintiffs: only the plaint averments can be considered on an application for rejection.
Kamala and Ors. v. K.T. Eshwarasa and Ors. 2018 (12) SCC 661
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 21
Cited by the plaintiffs: no evidence or defence can be looked into on an Order VII Rule 11 application.
Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 99
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 21
Cited by the plaintiffs: only the plaint averments may be considered at this stage.
Pawan Kumar v. Babu Lal since deceased through legal heirs and Ors. 2019 (4) SCC 367
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 21
Cited by the plaintiffs: a plaint is rejected only if the plaint itself shows, without doubt or dispute, that the suit is barred.
Hari Mohan Sharma and Ors. v. Chanranjeet Singh Rekhi & Ors. 2019 (12) SCC 412
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 21
Cited by the plaintiffs: an objection about necessary or proper parties is a triable issue.
Gopal v. Manohar Lal and Ors. 2016 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1208
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: jurisdiction is a mixed question, and a plaint can be rejected only if barred by law.
Babulal and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. 2011 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 730
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: the trial court must examine the plaint with its supporting material.
Pali Central Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr. v. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr. 2013 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1418
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: a civil court has jurisdiction over disputes about civil rights.
Prince Kazmi v. Sandeep Khaturia & Ors. 2023 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 537
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: an Order VII Rule 11 application can be decided after recording evidence on the point.
Gobar Ram v. Ram Pratap 2021 (4) WLC (Raj.) 415
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: only the plaint averments and the documents it is based on are examined.
New Swim and Smile Swimming Pool v. Smt. Usha Soni & Anr. (2019) 1 WLC (Raj.) UC 165
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 22
Cited by the plaintiffs: non-impleadment must be raised in the written statement, not under Order VII Rule 11.
State of Rajasthan v. Sawai Tejsinghji Maharaja of Alwar AIR 1968 Raj. 52
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the State on the Article 363 bar.
Sawai Tej Singh v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCC 512
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the State on the Article 363 bar.
Rajmata Krishna Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 20074 (1) RLW Raj. 570 [sic]
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the State on the Article 363 bar.
Draupadi Devi & Ors. v. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 672
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the State on the Article 363 bar.
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 44
Public servants must act within the limits of the Constitution and respect its basic structure (parting observations).
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 44
Purity of administration and integrity in public life; no misuse of position for personal gain (parting observations).
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 45
Public servants are answerable, transparent and accountable for their decisions (parting observations).
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 45
Power must be exercised justly and fairly, without arbitrariness (parting observations).

Suits Over Jaipur Ruler's 1949 Covenant Properties Barred by Article 363: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Four Plaints

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

No Specific Role, No Defamation Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2003 Complaint Against Rajasthan Patrika and Its Editor

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused