Rajasthan HC Upholds Jaipur Royal Heirs’ Title To 54 Bighas Around Rajmahal Palace, Finding Article 363 Bar Inapplicable On These Facts

The plaintiff claimed that land at Hathroi, Jaipur—originally identified as “Manji Ka Bagh,” “Residency” and “Princess House,” and later known as Rajmahal Palace—was personal property of Maharaja Man Singh under the 1949 Covenant and had been gifted to him in 1957.

Of the claimed 120 bighas 14 biswas, 65 bighas 16 biswas were acquired by the UIT/JDA; the plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the remaining 54 bighas 18 biswas.

After the Collector’s 1996 response, the plaintiff first brought a revenue suit, which was returned on the ground that the land was abadi land and the Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction; he then filed the present civil suit for declaration, correction of revenue entries and injunction.

The trial court decreed the suit. The State and JDA appealed, and also sought to introduce additional evidence and frame an additional issue.

Section 96 CPC permits an aggrieved defendant to appeal a decree, including an ex parte decree, and requires the first appellate court to reconsider questions of fact and law.

Order XLI Rules 27 and 25 CPC permit additional evidence or referral of an omitted issue only when the statutory conditions are met; additional evidence is not a right and cannot ordinarily be used to fill gaps in a party’s case.

Article 363 bars adjudication of disputes arising out of or relating to pre-Constitution covenants; however, relying on Jagat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, the court applied the distinction between a genuine dispute requiring determination of covenant rights and an illusory dispute.

Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not exclude Civil Court jurisdiction where the subject land is abadi land and the Revenue Court has returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction.

Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a declaration claim accrues when the plaintiff’s right is denied; the court treated the relevant denial and resulting cause of action as arising in the 1990s, not on execution of the Covenant or the 1958 settlement.

Revenue entries are fiscal records and do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title.

The court held that the proposed additional documents were within the appellants’ knowledge or possession, were not supported by their trial pleadings or appeal grounds, and were not shown to be necessary for deciding the appeal; it therefore rejected the applications under Rules 27 and 25.

On Article 363, it distinguished the cited cases involving claims that required a court to determine whether property had been recognised as private under a covenant. It found no pleaded, specific denial that Rajmahal was the Princess House identified in the Covenant, and relied on the acquisition history and record evidence to treat the State’s covenant-based objection as illusory rather than a genuine dispute requiring interpretation of the Covenant.

The court accepted Civil Court jurisdiction because the land was abadi land and the Revenue Court had returned the earlier suit on that basis.

It further found that the appellants had treated the property as the plaintiff’s until the later adverse action, making the suit filed after the Collector’s response and return of the revenue suit timely.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decree declaring the plaintiffs’ title, invalidating the contrary revenue entries, and granting the injunction and related relief concerning the boundary wall and possession.