The Supreme Court of India has ruled that private properties declared by former princely rulers following their merger with the Indian Union must devolve according to personal succession laws — and not by the customary rule of male lineal primogeniture. The landmark judgment, delivered in a dispute involving the erstwhile royal family of Kapurthala, marks a significant clarification on the legal status of ex-rulers' private estates.

Background to the Dispute

The case pitted two branches of the Kapurthala royal family against each other. On one side stood Brigadier Sukhjit Singh (retd), recognised by the Centre as the ruler of Kapurthala, who claimed the disputed properties devolved exclusively upon him under the customary rule of primogeniture applicable to princely states. On the other were his estranged wife Gita Devi and their children, who sought partition of the family properties, arguing these were ancestral coparcenary assets subject to ordinary succession law.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had sided with Brigadier Singh, upholding his primogeniture claim. The heirs of Gita Devi appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now set aside that finding entirely.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held that while succession to the 'Gaddi' (throne) continued to be governed by the rule of primogeniture even after accession, that principle did not extend to private properties declared by the ruler under the merger covenant.

'The 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,' the bench ruled.

The court further held that once merger agreements were signed and sovereignty ceased, former rulers became ordinary citizens — entitled to certain privileges such as privy purses and ceremonial recognition, but no more. Their declared private properties consequently fell under ordinary personal succession laws and were, in the bench's words, 'subject to taxation and acquisition in the ordinary way.'

The PEPSU Covenant and Its Interpretation

The judgment closely examined the covenant signed in 1948 for the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). The court noted that Article XIV of that covenant protected succession by custom only to the 'Gaddi' and personal dignities of the ruler, while Article XII separately recognised the ruler's ownership over declared private properties — without attaching any primogeniture condition to that ownership.

This textual distinction proved decisive. The bench concluded that the two categories — throne succession and private property succession — were never meant to be governed by the same rule.

Precedents Relied Upon

The Supreme Court drew on a line of earlier Constitution Bench and three-judge Bench decisions — including the Travancore case, the Rampur case, and the Faridkot royal property dispute — to reinforce its position. Taken together, these precedents establish that succession to private properties of former rulers cannot automatically follow the rule of primogeniture.

'The succession to such private ancestral properties must be in accordance with the personal law of the ruler and not as per any custom or rule of primogeniture,' the bench held, declaring the High Court's contrary conclusion 'illegal and unsustainable in law.'

Significance and What Comes Next

The ruling has implications beyond Kapurthala. Across India, several former princely families hold private estates whose succession has historically been contested along similar lines. This judgment effectively forecloses the primogeniture argument for any such private property, directing all such disputes toward personal succession law. Legal experts are likely to study its application to pending property cases involving other erstwhile royal families.