Holding

The claim is barred by Article 363 and the appellant has waived/abandoned his rights, so no relief can be granted.

Summary

Dr. Karan Singh, son of the former Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, claimed that 563 heirloom articles in the state Toshakhana were his private property. After a 1983 representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs was rejected, he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court, declaring 42 items his. The Supreme Court examined three issues: (1) whether Article 363 of the Constitution barred judicial determination of the claim, (2) whether the appellant had waived or abandoned his rights under estoppel, waiver and abandonment doctrines, and (3) whether the Government's rejection could be quashed or the matter referred to arbitration. The Court held that the correspondence between the ex‑Ruler and the Government constituted an agreement within the meaning of Article 363, rendering the claim barred, and that the appellant had effectively waived/abandoned his rights by failing to assert them for two decades. No illegality was found in the Government's decision, no ground existed for relief under Article 142, and no arbitration agreement existed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the State and Union appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars the maintainability of the writ petition concerning the heirloom articles.
Whether the appellant is disentitled to relief on the basis of estoppel, waiver or abandonment.
Whether the Government's rejection of the representation can be quashed, a declaration of private ownership granted, or the dispute referred to arbitration.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940s. Section 2(a)
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142, s. Article 291, s. Article 363, s. Article 366(22)
Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. Section 17, s. Section 31
Wealth Tax Act, 1957s. Section 5(1)(iv)

Subjects

Article 363Treaty barEstoppelWaiverAbandonmentPrivate property of princely rulersHeirloom jewelleryWrit petitionArbitrationEvidence Act admissionsWealth tax exemptionConstitutional law

Judgment

DR. KARAN SINGH A
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR:

. ,. APRIL 13, 2004

[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Article 363-Disputes arising out oftreaties, agreements, covenants etc.-
Bar to interference-By Courts-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Ex-Ruler C
entered into an agreement before commencement of Constitution-The said
ex-Ruler, in a correspondence to the Union of India, had given a list of his
private properties which did not include certain "articles" and was accepted
by the latter-Ex-Ruler's son filed a writ petition claiming the said "articles"
as private properties of the Ruler family-Held: The said correspondence D
would amount to an "agreement" within the meaning of Art. 363-Hence,
maintainability ofthe writ petition would depend upon the conclusion whether
the said "articles" were covered by the said agreement or not.

Articles 136 and 142-Relief-Moulding of-Disputed questions offact-
Ex-Ruler 's son made a representation claiming certain "articles" as private E
properties of the Ruler family-The said representation was rejected by the
Central Government-Writ petition filed by the said Ex-Ruler's son-
Maintainability of-Held: Disputed questions of fact, incapable of being
adjudicated upon without evidence, could not be adjudicated upon in writ
petition-Since there was no illegality in rejecting the representation no order F
directing reconsideration of the matter by Government could be passed-Also
no grounds existed whereby relief could be moulded under Art. 142.

Evide1:ce Act, 1872 :

Sections 17 and 31-Admission-Statements made in Books;
Autobiography etc.-Whether amount to admission, waiver or abandonment G
of right-Held: Such statement could not be taken into consideration as
conclusive admissions but could be taken as additional circumstances along
with other circumstances for determining whether the conduct of the maker
amounted to waiver and/or abandonment of right.
43 H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Arbitration Act, 1940 :

Section 2(a) - "Arbitration agreement "-Absence of-Issues-Reference
to arbitration-Held: No issue could be referred to arbitration in the absence
of an agreement to this effect.

B Practice and Procedure :

Estoppel, Abandonment and Waiver-Principles-Applicability of-Ex-
Ruler 's son filed a writ petition claiming certain "articles" as private properties
of the Ruler family but failed to take timely action-Division Bench held that
the son had waived and/or abandoned his right. in respect of the articles-
C Correctness of-Held: Although the son had/ailed to assert his right at proper
opportunity yet the doctrine of estoppe/ might not be applicable-But the
decision of the Division Bench could not faulted with.

The appellant was the son of ex-Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. The
ex-Ruler on 26-10-1947 executed an instrument of accession of Jammu and
D Kashmir. The articles in question comprising of jewellery and gold articles
etc. were transferred from Toshakhana at Jammu to Toshakhana at
Srinagar on 17-9-1951. The ex-Ruler died on 26-4-1961. During his
lifetime, the ex-Ruler did not claim the articles in question as private
property. The Government of India, in pursuance of Article 366(22) of
E the Constitution of India, recognized the appellant as a successor to the
ex-Ruler w.e.f. 26-4-1961. By Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act,
1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f. 28-12-1971. The abolition, however,
did not affect the ownership of the rulers of their private property as
distinct from State property.

F The appellant made a representation dated 2-12-1983 to the Ministry
of Home Affairs claiming that the articles lying in the Toshakhana,
Srinagar, were his personal properties.

In February 1984, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to the Union of India,
G Ministry of Home Affairs to decide and adjudicate upon the representatfon
dated 2-12-1983. Du ring the pen~ency of the writ petition, the
representation of the appellant was rejected by .the Union of India on 24-
9-1984. In its communication dated 24-9-1984 sent to the appellant, the
. Union of India, inter alia, noticed that in response to Government's letter
H dated 18-5-1949, the ex-Ruler in his letter dated 1-6-1949 addressed to the
KARAN SINGH v. ST ATE 45
then Minister of Home Affairs had sent a list of his private properties. A
There was no mention of jewellery or regalia in question in the said list.
The said list of private properties given by the ex-Ruler was accepted by
the Government of India and duly communicated by letter dated 9-6-1949
to the ex-Ruler. It was also stated that "it may incidentally be pointed out
. io-
that in your autobiography entitled 'Heir Apparent' and statements to the B
Press, you have acknowledged that the treasure lying in the Toshakhana
had been given to the State".

The appellant amended the writ petition and sought quashing of the
Government's decision as contained in the communication dated 24-9-1984
and also sought quashing of the rejection of his review application dated C
9-10-1984. Further, a declaration was sought that the heirlooms (563 items)
in the custody of Toshakhana, Srinagar were the personal properties of
the appellant.

The writ petition was partly allowed by a Single Judge of the High
Court. The appellant was declared rightful owner of'heirlooms' consisting D
of 42 items of jewellery. The appellant, the State Government and the
Union of India by each filing Letters Patent Appeals, challenged the
judgment of the Single Judge.

·The Division Bench held that regard being had to the provisions of
Article 363 of the Constitution of India, any claim arising out of such E
dispute by the ex-Ruler could not be granted by a court of law for the
purpose of giving relief. The Division Bench further held that the appellant
had failed to make a case establishing his right over the valuable movables.
Hence the appeal•
/
.
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there was no F
admission abandoning the articles in favour of the State Government in
terms of Sections 17 and 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and that it was open
to the appellant to explain the circumstances under which the appellant
made the statement in his autobiography "Heir Apparent".
G
The following questions arose before the Court :-

1. Whether the bar of Article 363 of the Constitution of India was
applicable to the maintainability of the writ petition?

2. Whether the appellant was disentitled to relief on the applicability H
---··

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of the.doctrine of estoppel, abandonment and waiver?
3. Whether the decision of the Government of India rejecting the
representation deserved to be quashed and declaration granted that the
articles were private properties of the appellant or the issue either deserved
to be remitted to the Government of India for reconsideration or referred
B for adjudication to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court?

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: QUESTION NO. 1: Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution:

C 1. Any right arising out of or relating to a treaty, covenant,
agreement etc. as mentioned in Article 363 of the Constitution, is barred
to be determined by any court. The correspondence exchanged between
the ex-Ruler and the Government oflndia would amount to "agreement"
within the meaning of Article 363. In case, the conclusion reaci.ed is that t I

the same also covers the articles in question, the bar of Article 363 would
D clearly"be attracted. But if this Court comes to the conclusion that these
articles are not covered by the said correspondence, Article 363 would ~e
inapplicable. This factual aspect has been considered whi!e examining
other questions. [46-A-B-C-D-)

HH. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of
E
Gwalior v. Union of India, [1971) 1 SCC 85, Colonel His Highness Sawai
Tej Singhji of A/war v. Union of India, (1979) 1 SCC 512, Union of India v.
Prince Muffakam Jah, [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 702 and Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra
Singh v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCR 631, relied on.

F QUESTION NO. 2: Re: Applicability of doctrine of estoppel, waiver or
Abandonment.

2.1. The claim of the appellant lost sight of the following facts:-

(a) The correspondence exchanged between the Government of India
G and the ex-Ruler showed that the articles in question were not claimed
by the ex-Ruler to be his private property in his lifetime. (59-B-C-D]

(b) The appellant was recognized as the successor to the ex-Ruler
on his demise in the year 1961. No claim was made till representation dated
2-12-1983. [59-D-E)
H
KARAN SINGH v. ST ATE 47
(c) The appellant did not make any application to the Central Board A
of Direct Taxes to obtain exemption under Section 5(1) (iv) of the Wealth
Tax Act nor had the Central Government recognized the said articles as
heirlooms of the appellant, as required for the purpose of exemption from
wealth tax. The appellant filed an application claiming exemption under
Section 5(1) (ivx) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the articles in
question only on 7-2-1985, after filing of the writ petition before the High B
Court. (59-F-G-H; 60-A-B-C)

(d) The appellant in his autobiography entitled "Heir Apparent" had
made a statement to the following effect: (60-A-B-C)

"Again unlike most of other Rulers, my father made a clear C
dis~inction between his private property and State property. He
left family jewellery, shawls, carpets and Regalia worth crores
with the State Toshakhana (Treasury) which most others in his
place would have appropriated without turning a hair."

2.2. Though, on the aforesaid facts, the doctrine of estoppel may not
D
be applicable against the appellant for want of three conditions as laid
down in Gyarsi Bai but the same cannot be said about abandonment and
waiver. It is not a mere case of latches and standing by the appellant.
Firstly, the father of the appellant never claimed the articles to be his
private property. After his death, for twenty years the appellant did not E
take any action. On the other hand he was occasionally taking articles on
loan from the Toshakhana. The appellant failed to assert his right at
proper opportunity. Having regard to this fact, the conclusion of the
Division Bench that the appellant has waived and/or abandoned his right
in respect of the articles in question cannot be faulted with. [61-C-D-E-F] F,
Dhiyan Singh v. Juga/ Kishore, (1952] SCR 478, Gyarsi Bai v. Hanukah
Lal (1965] 2 SCR 154, Shad Mulch and & Co. Ltd v. Jawahar/al Mills Ltd.,
(1953) SCR 351, Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimvadi
Tenants' Association, (1988) Supp. SCC 55 and Chandra Dalui v. Biswanath
Banerjee, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 487, relied on. G
Mitra Sen Singh v. Mt. Janki Kuar, AIR PC 213 and Pickard v. Sears
6 AD and E 469, referred to.

QUESTION NO. 3 :
3.1. There has never been any declaration that the articles in question H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A are private properties of the appellant or his father. The correspondence
between the ex-Ruler and the Government does not declare these articles
as private p~operties of the ex-Ruler though some other properties were
so declared. Assuming there is some substance in the claim of the appellant,
which requires consideration, then it willdepentt upon examination of
B various disputed questioJt of facts. Such disputed questions cannot be
adjudicated except on taking of evidence. (63-B-C-D]

Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2003) IO SCALE 141, relied on .•

Dr. Karan Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1986) 1 SCC 541,
referred to.
c
3.2. There is no illegality in the decision of the Government that was
approached by the appellant himself. Therefore, it is not possible to quash
the order dated 24-9-1984 and direct reconsideration of the issue by the
Government. Further, there is no ground, on the facts of the present case,
D to exercise powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to
mould the relief. (63-E-F; 64-A-B]

3.3.Moreover, the issue cannot also be referred to arbitration for
adjudication in the absence of any agreement requiring reference to
arbitration. Further, there is no such claim in the writ petition. (64-A-B)
E
4. The statements made in the book "Heir Apparent" are not being
taken into consideration as conclusive admissions as such but have been
taken as additional circumstances along with other circumstances that
have already been noticed, for determining whether the conduct of the
appellant amounts to waiver and/or abandonment of right in respect of
F the articles in question. (61-A-B-C]

Shri Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, [1959) Supp. 1 SCR 698, Bharat
Singh v. Bhagirathi, [!966) 1 SCR 606 and Chikkam Koreswara Rao v.
Chikkam Subba Rao, (1970) 1 SCC 558, relied on.

G Trinidad Asphalt Company v. Caryat, (1986) A.C. 587 and In Re:
Chandra Kunwar, (1906) 34 I.A. 27, cited.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 5943-
5945 of 1997.

H
KARAN SINGH v. STATE [SABHARWAL, J.] 49
From the Judgment and Order dated 305.97 of the Jammu and.Kashmir A
High Court in L.P.A. (W) Nos. 39, 60 and 64 of 1989.

Kapil Sibal, Sanjeev Sen, R.N. Karanjawala, Sandeep Kapur, Bharat
. f- Singh, Neeraj Gupta, Ajay Kapur, Brijesh Kalapa, Ms. Ruby Ahuja and
Ms. Anjali Verma for Mis. JBD & Co., for the Appellants.
B
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Altaf H. Naiyak,
A.G for Jammu and Kashmir, A.Subba Rao, Ms.Rekha Pandey, Prateek
Jalan, Ms. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeswaran, Anis Subrawardy, Shamama
Anis, Syed Mehdi Imam and Vinay Tripathy for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. The main issue to be determined in these
appeals is whether 563 articles lying in 'Toshakhana' (Treasury of the State
of Jammu & Kashmir) can be declared as the private property of the appellant
or this issue deserves fresh determination by Government of India or it be
referred to arbitration for adjudication. The background under which the D
issue has come up for consideration may first be noticed.

The appellant is son of Maharaja Hari Singh, ex-ruler of Jammu and
Kashmir. Ap. instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir was executed
by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26th October, 1947. The articles in question E
comprising of jewellery and gold articles etc. were transferred from
Toshakhana at Jammu to Toshakhana at Srinagar on 17th September, 1951.
Maharaja Hari Singh died on 26th April, 1961. During his lifetime, Maharaja
Hari Singh did not claim the articles in question as private property. The
Government of India, in pursuance of clause (22) of Article 366 of the
Constitution of India, recognized appellant as a successor to late Maharaja F
Sir Hari Singh w.e.f. 26th April, 1961. By Constitution (Twenty-Sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f. 28th December, 1971.
The abolition, however, did not affect the ownership of the rulers of their
private property as distinct from State property.

The appellant made a representation dated 2nd December, 1983 to the G
Ministry of Home Affairs claiming that the articles lying in the Toshakhana,
Srinagar, i.e., the heirlooms, wearing apparel, gold and silver utensils and
cutlery, furniture, fixtures and carpets etc. are the property of the ruler family
of Jammu and Kashmir coming from generation to generation since the
inception of the rulership and are his personal property. The Ministry was H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A requested to issue immediate instructions to the State Government for handing
over all the articles to the appellant.

In February 1984, a writ petition was filed in Jammu and Kashmir High
Court, inter a/ia, praying for issue of directions to the Union of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs to decide and adjudicate upon the representation dated 2nd
B December, 1983. During the pendency of the writ petition, the representation
of the appellant was rejected by the Union of India on 24th September, 1984.
In its communication dated 24th September, 1984 sent to the appellant, the
Union of India, inter a/ia, noticed that in response to Government's letter
dated 18th May, 1949, Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter dated lst June, 1949
C addressed to late Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the then Minister of Home ~ffairs,
had sent a list of his private properties. There is no mention of jewellery or
regalia in question in the said list. The said list of private properties given by
the Maharaja Hari Singh was accepted by the.Government of India and duly
communicated by letter dated 9th June, 1949 to Maharaja Hari Singh. It was
also stated that "it may incidentally be pointed out that in your autobiography
D entitled 'Heir Apparent' and statements to the Press, you have acknowledged
that the treasure lying in the Toshakhana had been given to the State".
'
In the writ petition, the High Court rejected the application of the
appellant for inspection of the articles. The boxes of jewellery wer~, however,
ordered to be sealed by order dated 20th July, 1985. This Court, on the
E appeal of the appellant, setting aside the order of tht High Court, .directed
opening of those boxes for the purpose of inspection by the Member, Central
Board of Direct Taxes who was to be accompanied by Director General of
Archaelogical Survey of India, Director Antiques, Dirl;!ctor, National Museum
and approved valuers of jewellery for determining the true nature and character
F of the ~ame and whether any and, if so, what items constitute heirlooms
articles of personal use of the appellant and his family. The inspection was
directed to be taken in the presence t>f the appellant's representative as also
a representative of the State Government (See Dr. Karan Singh v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [1986] I SCC 541). In terms of this decision,
the inspection was carried out and report submitted to the High Court.
G
The appellant amended the writ petition and sought quashing of the .
Government's decision as contained in the communication dated 24th
September, 1984. Since the Government had also rejected the application of
the appellant seeking review of its decision dated 24th September, 1984, the
H appellant also sought quashing of the rejection of his review application
KARAN SINGH v. STATE [SABHARWAL, J.) 51

dated 9th October, 1984. Further, a declaration was sought that the heirlooms A
in the custody ofToshakhana, Srinagar (563 items) are the personal properties
of the appellant.

The writ petition was partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of the
High Court. The appellant was declared rightful owner of 'heirlooms'
consisting of 42 items of jewellery mentioned in appendix 'C' to the report B
of the Inspection Committee appointed by this Court. The State Government
was directed to deliver possession thereof to the appellant. The orders of the
Government of India, rejecting the representation and declining to review the
said order were quashed. The Government of India was directed to reconsider
the appellant's representation after giving a proper opportunity of being heard C
to all the parties involved in the matter with regard to the claim of the items
of jewellery mentioned in appendix 'A' and 'B' to the report of the Inspection
Committee above referred ..

The judgment of learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellant,
the State Government and the Union of India by each filing Letters Patent D
Appeal, the appellant claiming that all the articles ought to have been declared
as his private property and the State Government and Union of India claiming
that the writ petition should have been dismissed by the leamect,Single Judge.

By the impugned judgment, all the three Letters Patent Appeals have
been decided. The Division Bench has held that the appellant has not put E
forward any claim much less such claim having been recognized by the
Union of India for 30 years and all those years the appellant did not raise his
little finger in respect of these movables. The Division Bench came to the
conclusion that looking to the nature and circumstances and the conduct of
the appellant, it is evident that till 1983, no attempt whatsoever was ..1ade, F
either by the ex-ruler or by the appellant, to claim these properties as private
properties. The Division Bench held that either there was relinquishment of
right or waiver voluntarily. The finding of learned Single Judge in respect of
42 items was reversed. The Division Bench further held that regard being had
to the provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution oflndia, any claim arising
out of such dispute by the ex-ruler cannot be granted by a court of law for G
the purpose of giving relief. The Division Bench has concluded that the
appellant has failed to make a case establishing his right over the valuable
moveables. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed
and appeals filed by the State and the Union of India have been allowed.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A contends that the Division Bench is in error in coming to the conclusion that
the appellant has abandoned, relinquished or waived his right and in dismissing
the writ petition. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment Mr.
Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union
of India and Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, learned Advocate General of the State
B contend that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of bar contained
in Article 363 of the Constitution of India and, even otherwise, the appellant
had no right to reopen the issue after lapse of 30 years besides there being
highly disputed questions of fact.

At the outset, we may note that there has never been any declaration
C that the articles in question were private properties of Maharaja Hari Singh
or that of the appellant.

With the aforesaid factual backdrop, the questions that arise for
consideration are :

I. Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution of India to the
D maintainability of the writ petition;
2. Whether the appellant is disentitled to refie_f on applicability of
the doctrine of estoppel, aband<'nment and waiver;
3. Whether the decision of the Government of India rejecting the
E representation deserves to be quashed and declaration granted
that the articles are private property of the appellant or the issue
either deserves to be remitted to Government of India for
reconsideration or referred for adjudication to an arbitrator to be
appointed by this Cour.

F Question No. 1 : Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution:

The contention urged on behalf of the respondents is that the issue
whether the articles are private or State property arises out of document of
accession entered into by Late Maharaja Hari Singh with the Government of
the Dominion of India and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the courts is barred.
G
Article 363 of the Constitution which bars interference by courts in
disputes arising ouT of certain treaties, agreements etc. reads as under:-

"(l) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but subject to the
provisions of article 143, neither the Supreme Court nor any other
H court shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision
KARAN SINGH v. STATE (SABHARWAL, J.] 53
of a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar A
instrument which was entered into or executed before the
commencement of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State
and to which the Government of the Dominion of India or any of its
predecessor Governments was a party and which has or has been
continued in operation after such commencement, or in any dispute
in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation B
arising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution relating to
any such treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other
similar instrument.

(2) In this article
c
(a) "Indian State" means any territory recognized before the
commencement of this Constitution by his Majesty or the Government
of the Dominion of India as being such a State; and

(b) "Ruler" includes the Prince, Chief or other person recognized
before such commencement by His Majesty or the Government of the , D
Dominion of India as the Ruler of any Indian State."

Interpreting the aforesaid Article in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav
Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v. Union of India and Anr.,
[ 1971] 1 SCC 85, this Court held :
E
" ..... But the Constituent Assembly did not want to open up the
Pandora's box. With Article 363, Article 362 would have opened the
floodgates of litigation. The Constituent Assembly evidently wanted
to avoid that situation. That appears to have been the main reason for
enacting Article 363 ..... Some of the Rulers who had enterc..i into F
Merger Agreements were challenging the validity of those agreements,
even before the draft of the Constitution was finalized. Some of them
were contending that the agreements were taken from them by
intimidation; some others were contending that there were blanks in
the agreements signed by them and those blanks had been filled in
without their knowledge and to their prejudice. The merger process G
went on hurriedly. The Constitution-makers could not have ignored
the possibility of fumre challenge to the validity of the Merger
Agreements. Naturally they would have been anxious to avoid
challenge to various provisions in the Constitution which are directly
linked with the Merger Agreements."
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. ·

A It was further observed:

"That is why Article· 363 really embodied the principles of Acts of
State which regulated and guided the rights and_ obligations under the
covenants or Merger Agreements by incorporating the doctrine of
--' I
unenforceability of covenants or Merger Agreements coming into
B existence as Acts of State."

In Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of A/war v. Union of India
and Anr., [1979] 1 SCC 512, this Court held that :

"Another contention raised by Mr. Sharma was that even ifthe letter
c dated September 14, 1949 was held to evidence an agreement, it was
not hit by the provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution inasmuch
as it was an agreement resulting from the Rajasthan Covenant which
alone, according to him, was the agreement covered by the article.
This contention is also without substance. Article 363 of the
Constitution bars the jurisdiction of all courts in any disputes arising
D out of any agreement which was entered into or executed before the
commencement of the Constitution by any ruler of an Indian State to
which the Government of India was a party. The operation of the
article is not limited to any "Parent" covenant and _every agreement
whether it is primary or one entered into in pursuance of the provisions
E of a preceding agreement would fall within the ambit of the· article.
Thus the fact that the agreement contained in the letter dated September
14, 1949 had resulted from action taken under the provisions of the
Rajasthan Covenant, is no answer to the plea raised on behalf of the
respondents that Article 363 of the Constitution is a bar to the
maintainability of the two suits, although we may add, that the
F agreement did not flow directly from the Rajasthan Covenant but was
entered into by ignoring and departing from the provisions of clause
(2) of Article XII thereof."

Again in Union of India v. Prince Muffakam Jah and Ors.,(11) [1995]
G Supp. 1 SCC 702, while giving reasons for rejection of intervention application
that had been filed by the interveners claiming to be public-spirited citizens
and urging that there was a clear conceptual division between the Nizam's
personal and private property and the State property, it was held :

"Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of all the courts in any dispute
arising out of any provision of a treaty, agreement, covenant,
H
.I
KARAN SINGHv. STATE [SABHARWAL. J.) 55
engagement, sanad or other similar instrument which was entered A
into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution by
any Ruler of an Indian State."

At this stage it would b~ apposite to notice the decision of t~is Court
in Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India and Ors., [1970] 2
SCR 63 1, where while considering the contention urged on behalf of the B
petitioner that by the executive order private properties were handed over to
the Ruler, reproducing the concerned notification of Government of India,
this Court held that :

"It is apparent that there is no notification by virtue of which the
Ruler became entitled to private properties. The notification which C
recognized the Ruler did not state that the Ruler thereby became
entitled to private properties of the late Ruler. Mr. Attorney-General
appearing for Union also made it c'tear that no right to property flowed
from the Government Order of recognition of Rulership. It is manifest
that the right to private properties of the last Ruler depends upon the D
personal law of succession to the said private properties. The
recognition of the Ruler is a right to succeed to the gaddi of the
Ruler. This recognition of Rulership by the President is an exercise
of political power vested in the President and is thus an instance of
purely executive jurisdiction of the President. The act of recognition
of Rulership is not, as far as the President is concerned, associated E
with any act of recognition of right to private properties. In order to
establish that there has been an infringement of rights to property or
proprietary rights, the petitioner has to establish that the petitioner
owns or has a right to property which has been infringed by the
impugned act. In the present case, the petitioner cannot be heard to F .
say that the petitioner possesses any private property which has been
invaded. The petitioner's contention fails for two reasons. First, the
recognition of Rulership by the President does not, as far as the
President is concerned, touch any of the private properties claimed.
Secondly, the petitioner does not possess any private property which
has been effected by the act of recognition of Rulership. It must be G
stated here that as far as the right to privy purse of a Ruler is concerned,
Article 291 of the Constitution enacts that payment of any sum which
has been guaranteed to any Ruler of a State as a privy purse shall be
charged on and paid out of the consolidated fund of India. The privy
purse is not an item of private property to which the Ruler succeeds. H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Counsel for the petitioner also realized the effect of Article 291 and
did not pr~ss the contention of privy purse being a private property."

Thus, it is evident that any right arising out of or relating to a treaty
covenant, agreement etc. as mentioned in Article 363, is barred to be
detennined by any court. The correspondence exchanged between Maharaja
B Hari Singh and the Government of India would amount to 'agreement' within
the meaning of Article 363. In case, the conclusion reached is that the same
also covers the articles in question, the bar of Article 363 would clearly be
attracted. But if this Court comes to the conclusion that these articles are not
covered by the said correspondence, Article 363 would be inapplicable.
C According to the appellant, there is no document whereunder the question as
to these articles came to be considered by the Government. According to the
Government, the correspondence of 1949 and letter dated 24th December,
1952 decides the aspect of private properties. This factual aspect has been
considered while examining other questions.

D Question No.2 : Re: Applicability of doctrine of estoppel, waiver or
abandonment

The Division Bench in the impugned judgment, as earlier noticed, has
held that 'either there was reliriquishment of right or waiver voluntarily'.
Before we examine the facts to decide this issue, reference may be made to
E certain decisions on the aspect of estoppel, abandonment and waiver. The
leading case on estoppel is that of Pickard v. Sears, 6 AD & E469 wherein
Lord Denman, C.J. in delivering judgment, inter a/ia, said :

"His title having been once established, the property could only be
divested by gift or sale; of which no specific act was even sunnised.
F But the rule of law is clear that where one by his words or conduct
willfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of
things, and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own
previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the
latter a different state of things as existing at the same time; ...." (See
: Bigelow on Estoppel, pp.606, 607)
G
In Mitra Sen Singh and Ors. v. Mt. Janki Kuar and Ors., AIR (1924)
PC 213 at 214, with regard to estoppel, it was stated:

"There is no peculiarity in the Jaw of India as distinguished from that
of England which would justify such an application. The Jaw of India
H
KARANSINGHv. STATE[SABHARWAL, J.) 57
is compendiously set forth in S.115 of the Indian Evidence Act, Act A
I of 1872. It will save a long statement by simply stating that section,
which is as follows :

...
'
'When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally
caused or pennitted another person to believe a thing to be true and
to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be B
allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person
or his representative to deny the truth of that thing'."

In Dhiyan Singh and Anr. v. Jugal Kishore and Anr., (1952] SCR 478
this Court stated :
c
"Now it can be conceded that the before an estoppel can arise, there
must be first a representation of an existing fact as distinct from a
mere promise de futuro made by one party to the other; second that
! the other party; believing it, must have been induced to act on the
faith of it; and third, that he must have so acted to his detriment."
D
In Gyarsi Bai and Ors. v. Dhansukh Lal and Ors., (1965] 2 SCR 154,
the principles were reiterated in the following words :

"To invoke the doctrjne of estoppel three conditions must be satisfied:
(1) representation by a person to another, (2) the other shall have
acted upon the said representation, and (3) such action shall have E
• been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the
representation has been made."

Abandonment

In Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Jawahar Mills Ltd, F
(1953] SCR 351, this Court stated :

"Two things are thus clear, namely, (I) that abandonment of right is
much more than mere waiver, acquiescence or !aches and is something
· akin to estoppel if not estoppel itself, and (2) that mere waiver,
acquiescence or laches which is short of abandonment of right or G
estoppel does not disentitle the holder of shares who has a vested
interest in the shares from challenging the validity of the purported
forfeiture of those shares."
~
-~
In the same decision the Supreme Court also made it clear that
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A "A man who .has a vested interest and in whom the legal title lies
. does not, and cannot, lose that title by mere !aches, or mere standing
by or even by saying that he has abandoned his right, unless there is
something more, namely inducing another party by his words of
conduct to believe the truth of that statement and to act upon it to his
detriment, that is to say, unless there is an estoppel, pure and simple.
B It is only in such a case that the right can by lost by what is loosely
called abandonment or waiver, but even then it is not the abandonment
or waiver as such which deprives him of his title but the estoppel
which prevents him from asserting that his interest in the shares has
not been legally extinguished, that is to say, which prevents him from
c asserting that the legal forms which in law bring about the
extinguishment of his interest and pass the title which resides in him
to another, were not duly observed."

Waiver

D · In Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants'
Association and Ors,, [1988] Supp. SCC 55, it was held

"In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional ·
relinquishment of a right. The essence of a waiver is an estoppel and
where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver
E are questions of conduct and must necessarily be determined the facts
of each case."

For the purpose of the present case, the principles laid down in Provash
Chandra Dalui and Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr., [1989) Supp.I
SCC 487, are quite apt. One of the questions that came up for consideration
F in the said decision was whether there was estoppel, waiver, acquiescence or
res judicata on the part of the respondents as in earlier proceedings they
treated the appellants as thika tenants before the Controller. It was held that
the essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional
relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as warrants the inference of
G the relinquishment of such right. It means forsaking the assertion of a right
to the proper opportunity. It was held that voluntary choice is the essence of
waiver for which there must have existed an opportunity for a choice between
the relinquishment and the conferment of the right in question:

On the touchstone of aforesaid principles, we have to examine facts of
H the case in hand to decide whether the right was forsaken. We have to decide
KARAN SINGH v. STATE [SABHARWAL. J.) 59
whether there existed an opportunity to Maharaja Hari Singh and/or the A
appellant to assert the right but it was not asserted at the appropriate time
when there was a proper opportunity. According to the appellant, the proper
opportunity arose only in the year 1983 when the newspapers reports appeared
showing the intention of the State Government to sell these articles. The
appellant did not forsake the assertion of his right at that time. In fact, he
immediately asserted his right by filing a representation and without even B
awaiting the decision of the representation by the Government, he filed the
writ petition before the High Court. In our view, however, it is over
simplification of the facts and background of the case. The claim of the
appellant loses sight of the following facts :

l. The correspondence exchanged between the Government of India
c
and Maharaja Hari Singh shows that articles in question were not
claimed by the ex-ruler to be his private property.
2. Maharaha Hari Singh, in his lifetime, did not claim the articles
in question to be his personal properties.
D
3. The appellant was recognized as the successor to Maharaja Hari
Singh on his demise in the year 1961. No claim was made till
representation dated 2nd December, 1983.
4. Section 5(1) (ivx) of the Wealth Tax Act provides for exemption
from wealth tax in respect of jewellery and other heirlooms in E
possession of the ruler. The exemption was available only where

·(a) the ruler's jewellery had been recognized by the Central
Government as his heirloom before the commencement of
the Wealth Tax Act; or

(b) The Central Board of Direct Taxes recognized the ruler's F
jewellery as his heirloom at the time of his first assessment
to wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act.

The appellant did not make any application to the Central Board
of Direct Taxes to obtain such recognition nor Central Government G
had recognized the said articles as heirlooms of the appellant, as
required for the purpose of exemption from wealth tax. The appellant
filed an application claiming exemption under Section 5(1) (ivx) of
the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the articles in question only on 7th
February, 1985, after filing of the writ petition in the High Court.
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 5. The appellant in his biography entitled "Heir Apparent" has made
a statement to the following effect :

"Again unlike most of other Rulers, my father made a clear
distinction between his private property, inc hiding Jewellery
and State property. He left family jewellery, shawls, cai:pets ·
B and Regalia worth crores with the State Toshakhana
(Treasury) which most others in his place would have
appropriated without turning a hair."

In respect of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the appellant,
referring to Sections 17 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act and certain
C decisions, contends .that there is no admission abandoning the articles in
favour of the State Government and also that it is open to the appellant to
explain the circumstances under which the same were made.

Reliance has been placed on Shri Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, [1959]
D SuppJ SCR 698, where dealing with admissions, this Court stated thw; :

"And admissions are not conclusive, and unless they constitute
estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they were mistaken or
were untrue: Trinidad Asphalt Company v. Coryat, [1896] A.C. 587.
Admissions are mere pieces of evidence and if the truth of the matter
is known to both parties the principle stated in Chandra Kunwar 's.
E case (1906) 34 I.A. 27 would be inapplicable."

Again in Bharat Singh and A!.lr. v. Bhagirathi, [1966] I SCR 606, on
which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
held:
F '~Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person
making them. Admissions are subjective evidence by themselves, in
view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they
are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted."

G Further reliance was placed on Chikkam Koreswara Rao v. Chikkam
Subba Rao and Ors., [1970] l SCC 558 for the observations to the following
effect:

"Before the right of a party can be considered to have been defeated
on the basis of an alleged admission by him, the impwcation of the
statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. There should
H
KARAN SINGflv. STATE (SABHARWAL.J.J 61
be no doubt or amhiguity about the alleged admissions." A
In the present case, the reliance on aforesaid decisions is as misplaced
as the argument itself. It has to be borne in mind that the statements made

r· in the book are not being taken into consideration as conclusive admissions
as. such but have been taken as additional circumstance along with other
circumstances that have already been noticed, for determining whether the B
conduct of the appellant amounts to waiver and/or abandonment of right in
respect of the articles in question. The appellant has not been declined relief
only on account of the statements made by him in the autobiography. It may
also be noticed that the material on record further shows that the appellant
has been taking from State Government on temporary loan certain items from
Toshakhana by moving applications from time to time for the said purpose.
c
This conduct of the appellant is also a relevant circumstance. It is evident that
the appellant came out of slumber only in the year I 983 and took a chance
I in respect of the articles in question. Though on the aforesaid facts, the
doctrine of estoppel may not be applicable against the appellant for want of
three conditions as laid down in Gyarsi Bai (supra) but the same cannot be D
said about abandonment and waiver. It is not a mere case of latches and
standing by the appellant. Firstly the father of the appellant never claimed the
articles to be his private property. After his death for twenfy years the appellant
did not take any action. On the other hand he was occasionally taking articles
on loan from Toshakhana. The appellant failed to assert his right at proper
opportunity. Having regard to these facts, the conclusion of the Division
E
Bench that the appellant has waived and/or abandoned his right in respect of
the articles in question cannot be faulted. ·

Question No. 3: Whether the decision of the Government of India rejecting
the representation deserves to be quashed and declaration F
granted that the articles are private property of the
appellant or the issue either deserves to be remitted to
Government of India for reconsideration or referred for.
adjudication to an arbitrator to be appointed by this
Court.
..· G
The relevant part of order dated 24th September, 1984 passed by the
Government of India rejecting appellant's representation reads_ as under:

I
. "2. The relevant facts appear to be that in response to Government of

..
India's letter of 18.5.1949, the then Maharaja of Kashmir in his letter
H

/•

.
,-

62 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A dated 1.6.1949 addressed to late Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then
Minister of Home Affairs and States, had sent a list of his private ._
properties. There is no mention of jewellery or regalia in question in \
B
the said list. The aforesaid list of private properties given by the then
Maharaja· of Kashmir was accepted by the Government of India and
the acceptance was duly communicated by letter dated 9th June, 1948
by late Sardar Patel
-
,

3. Later, Shri C.S. Venkatachar, the then Secretary, Ministry of States,
in his letter dated December 24, 1952 addressed to Maharaja Hari
Singh, referred to Sardar Patel's aforesaid letter of June 9, 1949 and
reiterated that the properties mentioned in the Schedule to Maharaja's
c letter were the private properties of the Maharaja and would continue
to be his private properties. There is no mention of jewellery or
regalia in question in the said Schedule.

4. On 18th August, 1958, a Notification was issued by the Ministry
of Finance (Department of Revenue) with regard to exemption of
D
heirloom jewellery from wealth tax. According to this Notification,
the then rulers were required to obtain recognition of jewellery as
their heirloom, if any, for purposes of exemption from the Wealth
Tax Act, 1957. The declaration was given in 26 cases by the then
Rulers and the jewellery was exempted from wealth tax subject to .
E certain conditions laid down in the Wealth Tax (Exemption of
Heirloom Jewellery of Rules) Rules, 1958. The Ruler of Jammu and
Kashmir, however, does not appear to have made any application
under Rule 3 of these Rules for recognition of jewellery. in question
as heirloom.

F 5. Consequent upon the enforcement of the Constitution (Twenty-
sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 with effect from 28th December, 1971,
the rulership was abolished. The question of the jewellery etc. being
required for ceremonial purposes thereafter cannot arise. Para 8 of
Shri C.S. Venkatachar's letter dated December 24, 1952 reproduced
in your letter does not relate to the jewellery in question and is of no i;
G
relevance now.
~
6. The agreements with regard to the private properties of the Rulers,
once arrived at, are final. ...
7. It may incidentally be pointed out that in your autobiography entitled
H
KARAN SINGH v. STATE [SABIIARWAL.J.] 63
'Heir Apparent' and statements to the Press, you have acknowledged· A
that the treasure lying in the Toshakhana had been given to the State.

8. Taking all aspects into consideration, the Government of India
regret their inability to accept yom claim to the jewellery and other
•• items lying in Srinagar Toshakhana."
B
As already noticed there has never been any declaration that the articles
in question are private properties of the appellant or his father. The
correspondence between Maharaja Hari Singh and the Government does not
declare these articles as private property of Maharaja though some other
properties were so declared. Assuming there is some substance in the claim
of the appellant which requires consideration, then it will d~pend upon C
examination of various disputed question of facts. Such disputed questions
cannot be adjudicated except on taking of evidence. In Dharam Dutt and
! Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 10 SCALE 141, a case of taking over
of Sapru House by promulgation of ordinance followed by the Act, the
contention of the writ petitioners was that the building, the library and all D
other movables in the Sapru House are owned by the Society and take over
. by the Government has deprived the Society of its property without any
authority of law. This Court noticing that Union of I~ia do not admit title
of the petitioner and· also noticing that there is not one document of title
produced by the petitioners, held that such highly disputed questions of fact ·
which cannot be determined except on evidence are not fit to be taken up' for E
adjudication in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. We see no illegality in the
decision of the Government that was approached by the appellant himself.
Therefore, it is not possible to quash the order dated 24th September, 1984
and direct reconsideration of the issue by the Government. Realising difficulties
in grant of relief in respect of declaration of articles to be private property F
of the appellant, Mr. Kapil Sibal did not seriously press it but at the same
time strenuously contended that it was amply fit case where the issue deserves
to be referred for adjudication to the arbitration of an independent arbitrator.
In support, reference has been made by learned counsel to the report of the
inspection team constituted. by this Court as noticed hereinbefore. The
contention urged is that the said report at least prima facie shows that these G
articles are private property of the appellant and, therefore, an independent
adjudication is called for. The inspection team was constituted and inspection
ordered as interim measure when the writ petition was pending before the
High Court. The report only gives a tentative opinion. It says that the matter
may have to be decided on taking evidence. The primafacie opinion expressed H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004j SUPP. I S.C.R.

A in the report is not a ground to refer the issue to arbitration for adjudication
in the absence of any agreement requiring reference to arbitration. Further
there is no such claim in the writ petition. Assuming that in an appropriate
case relief may be moulded by this Court and matter referred for adjudication
to arbitration in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
B Constitution of India, we see no ground, on the facts of the present case, to
exercise such power. The decision in respect of private property taken long
time back cannot be permitted to be reopened without any exceptional grounds
whLc_h are none in the present case.

For theaforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no interference is
C called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.