Priti Pratap Singh vs Rani Prem Kumari (Deceased) Thr Lrs

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

RFA No. 555/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 28238-43/2018

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment

of the Trial Court dated 12.3.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for partition and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect

to properties of her father Raja Pratap Singh. It may be noted that the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2018 is a common judgment disposing of two

suits. One suit is the subject suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff, and the second suit was the suit for possession filed by the sister of the

appellant/plaintiff, one Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria with respect to barsati floor/second floor of the property bearing no. 113, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, and

which suit filed by Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria was decreed in terms of the impugned judgment for possession and mesne profits, the RFA filed by the

present appellant/plaintiff against the impugned Judgment dated 12.3.2018 to the extent of decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by

Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria, the same stands compromised in terms of the consent/compromise order recorded today separately in RFA No. 554/2018.Â

The present appeal is therefore concerned with the properties of Raja Pratap Singh, other than the property at 113, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, and

which disputed properties are stated in Annexure-A to the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff.Â

The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff pleaded that she is the daughter of late Raja Pratap Singh who was the Jagirdar of Kuchaman in

Rajasthan. Besides the appellant/plaintiff, late Raja Pratap Singh had two other daughters, and who were sued as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit,

namely Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria and Smt. Raj Laxmi Shah. The widow of Sh. Raja Pratap Singh was sued as the defendant no. 1 in the suit.Â

Appellant/Plaintiff pleads that the registered Will dated 16.11.1992 relied upon by the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 being the widow

and other daughters of late Raja Pratap Singh is not a valid or genuine Will, and consequently since late Raja Pratap Singh died intestate therefore all

the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh have been inherited by his four legal heirs, namely three daughters and the widow, each of whom have 1/4th

share in the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh. The appellant/plaintiff has also pleaded that late Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi in the

Dusshera of October 1993, and ultimately late Raja Pratap Singh had taken a Jal Samadhi, i.e he expired, on 24.12.1993. Therefore, the alternative

case to seek intestacy of late Raja Pratap Singh by the appellant/plaintiff was that since Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi, therefore any Will

made by late Raja Pratap Singh including the registered Will dated 16.11.1992, was of no force and effect. Partition was accordingly claimed with

respect to the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh, to the extent of 1/4th share of the appellant/plaintiff, and which properties were stated in

Annexure-A to the plaint.

Besides respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit, and who were the widow and two other daughters of late Raja Pratap Singh,

defendant no.4 in the suit was the son-in-law of late Raja Pratap Singh being the husband of respondent no.3/defendant no.3, a proforma defendant in

the suit, as no reliefs were claimed against respondent no.4/defendant no. 4. Originally, there was no defendant no.5 in the suit. The defendant no.5

namely Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Trust was pendente lite added as defendant no.5 in the suit through its trustees as defendants no. 5(a) to

5(e). Respondent no. 5/Defendant no. 5/Trust was added as defendant no.5 to the suit during the pendency of the suit because the

appellant/plaintiff claimed that the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal were the properties of late Raja Pratap Singh at the time of his death and not of

the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust and which Trust claimed that these properties being Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal had vested in the

respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust on account of the Trust Deed dated 24.2.1978 and registered Settlement Deed/Pranyas Patra dated 15.2.1979.

Therefore the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust pleaded that late Raja Pratap Singh was not the owner of Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal at

the time of his death on 24.12.1993, and hence whether late Raja Pratap Singh died leaving behind his Will dated 16.11.1992 or died intestate, yet it

was only the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust which was the owner of the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal. Respondent no. 5/Defendant

no. 5/Trust also pleaded that the Trust Deed dated 24.2.1978 was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on 15.9.1978. Respondent no.

5/Defendant no. 5/Trust additionally pleaded that the Trust was again registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 in terms of the

application Ex.DW1/3 dated 20.4.1979. Pursuant to the application dated 20.4.1979 the Assistant Commissioner of Devasthan, Jodhpur on

18.12.1979 took out a notice under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, Ex.DW1/4 and thereafter on 27.3.1984 the respondent no.

5/defendant no. 5/Trust was registered with the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Bikaner, under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, vide

Ex.DW10/1. Respondent no. 5/Defendant no. 5/Trust therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed so far as it seeks the relief with respect to the

Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties.

After pleadings were completed, the trial court framed the following issues as noted in paras 14 to 16 of the impugned judgment:-

“14. On 04.9.2004, on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed, namely :-

Whether the deceased Raja Pratap Singh was competent to dispose off the properties by executing a Will? OPD

Whether the registered Will dated 16.11.1992 and the holographic Will dated 06.11.1992 have been validly executed by deceased Raja Pratap

Singh? OPD.

Whether probate is not essential in respect of the Will and holographic Will? OPD

Whether the deceased Raja Pratap Singh left behind any properties other than those mentioned in the Will? If so, to what effect? OPP.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition in respect of estates detailed in Annexure A to the plaint? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no. 5? OP

Relief.

Subsequently, an application under Order XIV rule 5 of CPC made on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and following additional issue no. 6 (a)

was framed on 02.11.2004, namely:-Â

6 (a) Whether the Kuchaman Fort and Palace have vested in defendant no. 5? OPD-5Â

Thereafter, by order dated 09.8.2017 on an application under Order XVI rule 5 of CPC made on behalf of the defendant no. 2 one more

additional issued no. 6 (b)was framed, namely:-Â

6(b) Whether a suit for partition on the basis of succession can be filed for the property which is the subject matter of a registered Will without

challenging the Will?â€​

After framing of issues, evidence was led by the parties, and these aspects are recorded in paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment, which read

as under:-

“17. In support of her case the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and during her examination in chief tendered her affidavit dated 04.1.2005

Ex. X alongwith documents Ex. P-9 to Ex. P-12. The plaintiff also got examined PW2 Rajender Prasad Saraswati, PW3 Bafati Karigar PW4 Pradeep

Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Pushkar, Rajasthan (also examined as PW6), PW5 Sumer Singh and PW Manohar Lal (also mentioned as PW5). During the

examination of PW Pradeep Kumar, PW Sumer Singh and PW Manohar Lal documents Ex. PW5/1 (two different documents tendered on 05.10.2007

and 20.8.2007 during examination of PW Sumer Singh and PW Manohar Lal respectively), Ex. PW5/2 (two different documents tendered on

05.10.2007 and 20.8.2007 during examination of PW Sumer Singh and PW Manohar Lal respectively), Ex. PW5/3 (two different documents

tendered on 05.10.2007 and 20.8.2007 during examination of PW Sumer Singh and PW Manohar Lal respectively), Ex. PW5/4, Ex. PW5/5 to Ex.

PW5/6, Ex. PW6/1, Ex. PW6/2 and Ex. PW6/3 were also tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. All the witnesses produced on behalf of

the plaintiff were cross examined by counsel for the defendants and on 24.4.2008 evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed.

In their defence the defendants got examined DW1 Rani Prem Kumari, DW2 Smt. Kiran Raj Bisaria, DW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah, DW5 Hari Om,

DW6 Dr. A.K. Srivastava, DW7 Sube Chander, DW8 Rakesh  Kumar Sharma, Registration Clerk, Office of Sub- Registrar-II, Lucknow, DW9

Mangla Ram Punia, Sub-Registrar, Nagaur, Rajasthan and DW10 Ramesh Chand, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan and DW

Raj Laxmi Shah (numbered as DW10). During the examination of the defendant's witnesses documents Ex. DW1/1 (two documents, out of which

document entitled Pranyas Patra also brought on record as Ex. PW1/D2), Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3, Ex. DW1/4, Ex. DW1/5, Ex. DW1/8 (also

brought on record as Ex. PW1/D1), Ex. DW1/9, Ex. DW1/10A, Ex. DW1/10B, Ex. DW1/10C, Ex. DW2/1A, Ex. DW2/1B, Ex.

DW2/1C, Ex. DW2/2, Ex. DW2/3, Ex. DW2/4, Ex. DW2/5, Ex. DW2/6, Ex. DW2/7, Ex. DW2/8, Ex. DW2/9, Ex. DW2/10, Ex. DW2/11A, Ex.

DW2/11B, Ex. DW2/11C, Ex. DW2/11D, Ex. DW2/11E, Ex. DW2/12A, Ex. DW2/12B, Ex. DW2/12C, Ex.DW2/12D, Ex. DW2/12E, Ex. DW8/1,

Ex. DW9/1, Ex. DW10/1 (two different documents tendered on 22.02.2010 and 05.4.2010 during examination of PW Ramesh Chand and PW Raj

Lakshmi Shah respectively) were also tendered in evidence on behalf of the defendants. All the defendants were cross examined by counsel for the

plaintiff. Subsequently, through admission denial documents Ex. D- 5/P-1 to Ex. D-5/P-3 were also brought on record and defendant's evidence was

closed.â€​

The first issue which is called upon for decision by this Court is Issue no.6 (and related issue 6(a)) i.e whether or not late Raja Pratap Singh had or

had not executed a Trust Deed dated 24.2.1978 and Pranyas Patra/Settlement Deed dated 15.2.1979 Ex.PW1/D2 whereby a Trust was created and

thereafter the Kuchaman Fort and Palace properties were transferred in favour of Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust through its

trustees.

Since the discussion by the trial court with regard to Issue no.6 is elaborated and exhaustive, I would seek to reproduce some of the paras which

decide this Issue no.6 and these paras read as under:-

“46. Thus, the stand of the plaintiff is that Kuchaman Fort and Palacenever vested in Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, whereas

accordingto the defendants, on 24.02.1978 by way of a trust deed late Raja PratapSingh created a public trust, namely Shree Shree Ma

AnandmayeeKuchaman Trust with corpus of Rs. 1,000/- which was got registered underthe provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, and

subsequently, in thefollowing year on 15.02.1979 by way of a document described asPranyas Patra (Ex. DW1/1 and also Ex. PW1/D-2), the

Kuchaman

Fort and Palace etc. were transferred to the said Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust and the said document, namelyPranyas PatraÂ

was got registered on 28.02.1979. According to thedefendants, the said Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust wassubsequently got

registered as a public trust under the provisions ofthe Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 also.

In this regard, it has been admitted by the plaintiff during hercross-examination that she was aware that on 24.2.1978 her father gotregistered a

trust at Bombay. However, she expressed herignorance about the registration of the said Trust in Rajasthansubsequently. During her cross

examination PW1 Priti Pratap Singh alsoadmitted that each page of Ex. DW1/1 bears signatures of her late fatherRaja Pratap Singh, butÂ

put rider that Ex. DW1/1 was never giveneffect. On the other hand DW1 Rani Prem Kumari during her examination unequivocally deposed

that after registration of the Trust at Bombay, Kuchaman Fort and Palace were transferred to the said Trust.Â

Similarly DW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah during his examination deposed that after registration of the Trust at Bombay, by way of PranyasÂ

Patra Ex. DW1/1 Kuchaman Fort and Palace were transferred to the said Trust and the Pranyas Patra was got registered in the office of Sub-

Registrar, Kuchaman. DW4Â Kanwar Narvir Shah, one of the trustee of the defendant no. 5 also deposed that subsequently thesaid Trust was also

got registered under the Rajasthan PublicTrust Act, 1959, and pursuant to application Ex. DW1/3, beforeregistration of the Trust under the Rajasthan

Public Trusts Act, 1959, theAssistant Commissioner Devasthan, Jodhpur on 18.12.1979 took out noticeunder section 18 (2) of the said Act, the copy

of which is Ex. DW1/4. DW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah further deposed that Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust is a public trust within the

meaning of section 92 of CPC, and therefore, the properties, of which the plaintiff is asking for partition, are not properties of late Raja Pratap Singh,

but are the properties of Shree shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust.

DW9 Mangla Ram Poonia, Sub-Registrar, Nagaur, Rajastahn, onthe basis of the summoned record brought by him proved theregistration ofÂ

Pranyas Patra Ex. DW1/1 that was registered as 6/79,book no. IV, Volume no. VII, pages 77 to 83 on 28.2.1979. DW9 ManglaRam Poonia also

tendered Ex. DW9/1, a copy of the documentregistered in his office.

DW10 Ramesh Chand, Assistant Commissioner, Devastahan,Ajmer, Rajasthan, during his examination, on the basis of record brought byhim

deposed that on 27.3.1984 Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee KuchamanTrust was registered with the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Bikaner,

the then authority under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959. DW10 Ramesh Chand also tendered document Ex. DW10/1 from hisrecord. DW10

Ramesh Chand also deposed that Shree Shree MaaAnandmayee Kuchaman Trust was duly registered without objectionfrom any one whatsoever.

From the testimonies of PW1 Priti Pratap Singh, DW1 Rani PremKumari and DW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah and documents Ex. DW1/1 andEx.

DW1/8 it has been proved that on 24.02.1978, by way of aninstrument in writing (Ex. DW1/1) late Raja Pratap Singh, with corpusof Rs. 1,000/-

created a Trust, namely Shree Shree MaaAnandmayee Kuchaman Trust for charitable purpose, and thesaid Trust was got registered under the

provisions of the BombayPublic Trust Act. From the testimonies of DW1 Rani Prem Kumari andDW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah and the contents of Will

Ex. DW1/8 it hasbeen proved that after creation of Shree Shree Maa AnandmayeeKuchaman Trust in writing and its registration at Bombayunder the

Bombay Public Trust Act, on 15.02.1979 Raja PratapSingh executed document entitled Pranyas Patra Ex. DW1/1, which, after english

translation, reads as follows:

SHRI GANESHAY NAMAH TRUST DEED

This Deed of Trust is made today on 15th day of February, 1979 accordingly Miti Phalgun Krishna 3 Thursday Samvat 2035 Vikram by me Raja

Pratap Singh Ji by caste Rajput Mertia residence of Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan that I had executed on 24.02.1978 a

Trust Deedat Bombay through which I established a Trust by name ofShree Ma Aanandmayee Kuchaman Trust, where as I myself is a devoteeand

servant of Ma Anandmayee and, therefore, I established a Trust in thename of Shree Shree Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust for fulfilling the objectsof

Public and Charitable purposes. Through this Trust I had given my own sum of money to the Trustees of the Trust and I had appointed FourTrustees

for managing the Trust and in which I myself was also a Trusteeand with me my wife Rani Prem Kumari Ji and Rajkumari Raj LakshmiShah, wife of

Rajkumar Shri Narvir Shah residing at present in New

Delhi and Babu Bhai Shri Kasturchand Shah at present residing atBombay were appointed Trustees and the object of that Trust weredescribed in

para no. 5 of the Trust Deed dated 15.2.1978 and for fulfilling and achieving those objects I had established aforesaid Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee

Kuchaman Trust and after executing the deed of Trust the same had been registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and in order to fulfill and for

achieving the aims and objects of the Trustthrough this deed I hereby transfer and assign my selfacquired and self owned immovable properties

situated at KuchamanCity (more fully detailed in the schedule (A) of this deed) tothe aforesaid Trust Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee KuchamanTrust

whereas I am also a Trustee of the aforesaid Trust, therefore,all the immovable properties belonging to me as rightful ownerand

in my possession and given in schedule (A) now through this Deedof Trust shall vest in the said Trust Shree Shree Ma AnandmayeeKuchaman

Trust, and all the Trustees I myself and Shrimati  Prem Kumarie Ji Rani Sahiba Kuchaman, Shrimati Rajkumari Raj  Lakshmi Shah at present

residing at New Delhi and Shri Babu Bhai  Kastur-Chand Shah resident of Bombay shall exercise their rights as  Trustees of the Trust in the

immovable properties, Palaces and Fort situated in Kuchaman City and described in schedule (A) and its income shall be utilized in the programs for

fulfilling the objects of the Trust initiated by me earlier. And with the effect of this day I relinquishall the rights as owner vested in me in respect of

said immovableproperties more fully described in schedule (A), in favour of the saidTrust through this Deed of Trust. And from this day Shree Shree

MaAnandmayee Kuchaman Trust aforesaid shall have all therights in the immovable properties described in schedule (A).

 In the schedule (A) attached with this Deed of Trust my own Palaces which are situated below to my Fort and My Fort situated on the hillare

included and all the surrounding to these two are alsomentioned in the schedule. Both the two immovable properties were in my ownership and rights

till today. I am and was ex-Jagirdar of the Thikana of Kuchaman and only son and heir of Late Shri Hari Singh Ji and the immovable properties

described in the schedule (A) has been my own and personal property and estate after the death of my father Late Shri Hari Singh Ji. I remain in

possession of this property as absolute owner and there is no other person having any right or title over the aforesaid property except me. As I have

no son I am desirous that theaforesaid properties be utilized for public charitable and endowmentpurposes and the general public to get benefitted by it

by fulfilling theobjects of the Trust earlier executed by me.Therefore, I have surrendered and transferred all my properties described in schedule

(A)through this Deed of Trust. Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust in which I am also a Trustee and the same has beencreated by me the

properties shall vest with and shall remain inpossession of the Trustees in my place from this day. Now from this daythe executant nor his heir have

any right or title over the property. Nowfrom this day the aforesaid Trust Shree Shree Ma AnandmayeeKuchaman Trust shall have all the proprietary

rights with all theamenities which were vested in me up till this day and the same shall beutilized for the attainment of the objects of the said Trust

Shree ShreeMa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust. Some part of the Palaces situated below the Fort as described in schedule (A) has been given on rent

to the education department for S.T.C. School. Now from this day all the rent payable by the education department for the said building the Trust will

be entitled to receive the rent and the said rent shall be utilized by the Trustees for the purposes of the said Trust. The Trustees can also let or hire the

other Palaces and buildings situated below the Fort and the rental income shall be utilized for fulfilling the objects of the said Trust. Now from this day

I shall have no personal right in the income of the immovable property described in schedule (A) and from today the Trust shall be responsible for the

upkeep, maintenance, security and management of the property given in the schedule (A) which is part of the Deed.

In witness whereof with my own and free Will and consent without any undue influence I the settler execute this Trust Deed in writing and the

immovable property by this Trust Deed is now transferred to the other Trustees with me as Trustee of the Trust. Today 15.2.1979 accordingly Miti

Phalgun Krishna 3 Thursday Samvat 2035. Typist Kanhaiya Lal Sharma. After typing on 3 non judicial stamps of Rupees 30, 10 and 5 total Rupees 45

and two plain papers total five papers read over to the settler Raja Shri Pratap Singh Ji Sahib which he acknowledge as correct.

Settler  Â

sd/Â

Pratap Singh Witness 1.

Witness 2.

From a perusal of document Ex. DW1/1 it can be discerned that although the said document purports to be a Pranyas Patra (Instrument of

Trust), but it is not a fresh trust deed, and instead the same is only a conveyance deed to transfer the immovable properties, inter vivos, in favour of

the Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, already created and registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

  xxxx   xxxx  xxxx

In so far raising adverse inference against the defendants due to non production of the original register in respect of the affairs and the properties

of the Trust by DW Raj Laxmi Shah is concerned, the said witness gave explanation that the original register could not be brought as the same was

with Devasthan. DW Raj Laxmi Shah further explained that the register was sent to the Devasthan as the plaintiff was making repeated inquiries and

as such on demand it was sent there. In the opinion of the court the witness has properly explained the reason for non production of original register,

therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants due to non production of the register. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has

not brought to the notice of this court any provision under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 or any other

law to suggest that the transfer of the Kuchaman Fort and Palace by way of Ex. DW1/1 to Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, created

and registered at Bombay was illegal or invalid and was not permissible under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. On the contrary, in the

light of   judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nautam Prakash DGSVC, Vadtal and others v. K.K. Thakkar and others, (2006) 5 SCC 330 it

appears to this court that a public trust created and registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 may own property outside the State of

Maharashtra.

From the contents of Ex. DW1/1, Ex. DW9/1 and Will Ex. DW1/8 ithas been proved that from 15.02.1979 Palace and Fort situated inKuchaman

City and described in schedule (A) to Ex. DW1/1vested in Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust and itsincome is to be utilized in the

programmes for fulfilling the objects ofthe said Trust initiated by Raja Pratap Singh. From the testimony ofDW4 Kanwar Narvir Shah and DW10

Ramesh Chand and documents Ex. DW1/3, Ex. DW1/4 and Ex. DW10/1 (copy of registrationcertificate under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959)

it has also beenproved that Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust was alsoregistered under the provisions of the RajasthanÂ

Public Trusts Act,1959. In these circumstances, there remains no doubt that since15.02.1979 onwards Palace and Fort situated in Kuchaman city

anddescribed in schedule (A) to Ex. DW1/1 vested in Shree Shree MaaAnandmayee Kuchaman Trust, which was subsequently alsogot registered

under the provisions of the Rajasthan PublicTrust Act, 1959, and hence Raja Pratap Singh ceased to be the ownerof the said properties comprised in

schedule (A) to Ex. DW1/1. Issuesno. 6 (a) is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendantno. 5.â€​ (emphasis is mine)

I completely agree with the discussion, reasoning and conclusions of the trial court that the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties stood

vested in the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust inasmuch as the Trust Deed has been proved and exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 and the Settlement

Deed/Pranyas Patra has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/D2. In fact, as noted by the trial court in para 47 of the impugned judgment that the

appellant/plaintiff in her cross-examination admitted that she was aware that her father had got registered a Trust at Bombay and she admitted the

signatures on each page of the Trust Deed Ex.DW1/1 as the signatures of the father though with the rider that the Trust Deed Ex.DW1/1 was not

given any effect. DW-9 was a witness summoned by the Trust from the Sub-Registrar at Nagaur in Rajasthan and this witness DW-9 Sh. Mangla

Ram Punia has proved the factum of registration of Pranyas Patra Ex.DW-1 (and also exhibited as PW1/D2) at 6/79, Book No. IV, Volume No.VII,

Pages 77 to 83 on 28.2.1979. A copy of the Pranyas Patra Ex. DW9/1 as found in the office of the Sub-Registrar was tendered by DW-9 and

which was proved as Ex.DW9/1. In my opinion, therefore, the trial court has rightly held that the Pranyas Patra was executed, whereby late Raja

Pratap Singh had transferred Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties to Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust. It is also relevant

to note that in this Pranyas Patra Ex.PW1/D2 it is specifically stated by the Settler Raja Pratap Singh, that the properties given in Schedule A to the

Pranyas Patra Ex.PW1/D2 will vest in the Trust-Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, with the Fort and Palace/Mahal being the

properties specified in Schedule-A of the Trust Deed and therefore it is held that there is no doubt as to the fact that by the Trust Deed the Kuchaman

Fort and Palace/Mahal properties were transferred to the Trust. I need not reproduce the Settlement Deed/ Pranyas Patra as it has already been

reproduced in entirety in para 51 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced above.Â

In law, transfer of an immovable property is by a registered document as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the Pranyas

Patra is a document which is duly registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar at Nagaur, Rajasthan, therefore, I hold that by means of the Pranyas

Patra the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties became vested in Shree Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust. Once the Kuchaman

Fort and Palace/Mahal properties were vested in the Trust, the same could not have been subject matter of any Will executed by late Raja Pratap

Singh including the Will dated 16.11.1992, and also even if Raja Pratap Singh died intestate, the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties would

not be available to the legal heirs for being partitioned because the ownership of Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties stood vested with Shree

Shree Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust much prior to the actual death of Raja Pratap singh on 24.12.1993 ,as already discussed and concluded

above. I also affirm the finding of the trial court that a suit filed in the year of 1994 to challenge the trust deed and Pranyas Patra of the year

1978/1979, would be time barred.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff firstly sought to argue that the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties are not validly

transferred to the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust inasmuch as in view of the provisions of Sections 22(C) and 36(B) of the Bombay Public

Trusts Act. This argument of the appellant/plaintiff however is of no substance because there is no provision in the Bombay Public Trusts Act

which states that if the details of the trust properties are not forwarded/given to the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, then

a transfer of a property to a trust is void and of no effect. The provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, like the provisions of the Rajasthan

Public Trusts Act, provide, certain privileges and disadvantages on account of registration of the Trust Act under the said Local Acts which extend

with the boundaries of the respective States of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, however there is no provision in the Bombay Public Trust Act that if

the property of the Trust is not informed to the Charity Commissioner as required by Section 22(C) within a period of three months, that will cause a

result that there is no property which would be vested in the Trust simply because of not giving this information to the Charity Commissioner under the

Bombay Public Trusts Act. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff could not point out to this Court any such provision in the Bombay

Public Trusts Act, and in fact it was ultimately conceded by the learned senior counsel that there is no provision under the Bombay Public TrustsÂ

Act that simply because the trust does not inform the Charity Commissioner under Section 22(C) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act of an immovableÂ

property vesting in the public trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and with respect to which immovable property mention

will be made in the Register of the properties of the Trust under Section 36(B) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, then the transfer of the immovable

property to the Trust would become invalid and void simply because of necessary information not being transmitted to the Charity Commissioner under

the Bombay Public Trusts Act. I therefore reject the argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that there is no valid transfer of the

Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties to the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust simply because of the Trust not giving such information to

the Charity Commissioner under the provision of Section 22(C) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

11. At this stage, I would like to note that under the provision of Section 18(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, a Trust can be registered under the

said Act in case even if the trust property or substantial trust property is not located within the local limits of jurisdiction of the operation of the

Bombay Public Trusts Act, provided that the trustee has an office of administration of the Trust within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Bombay

Public Trusts Act. It is possibly for this reason that late Raja Pratap Singh and the trustees of the respondent no.5/defendant no.5/Trust had applied

for registration of the Trust in Mumbai and which is also got registered in Mumbai, however as already discussed above, the Trust was also

subsequently got registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. However, registration of a public Trust either under the Bombay Public Trusts

Act or under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, will not have any effect with respect to vesting of a property in a Trust by a Settlement Deed by any

person including the Settler of the Trust, inasmuch as there is no provision either in the Bombay Public Trusts Act or in the Rajasthan Public Trusts

Act that on not informing the respective authorities under the two Acts of a particular immovable property vesting in the Trust, only for the such

reason the Trust will not be the owner of the immovable property, which has otherwise been validly vested in the Trust by means of a duly registered

document in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Â

12(i)Â Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff then sought to argue that Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties could not be said to

have vested in the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust, and this so argued by placing reliance upon the language contained in the Will dated

16.11.1992/Ex.DW1/8 of late Raja Pratap Singh. On the basis of the relied upon language in the Will where it is stated that the Kuchaman Fort and

Palace/Mahal properties which are already vested in the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust “are in the process of being registered before

the Deputy Commissioner of Greater Bombay regionâ€, i.e it is argued that since it is written in the Will that the factum with respect to the Kuchaman

Fort and Palace/Mahal properties are only in the process of being registered before the Deputy Commissioner of Greater Mumbai under the Bombay

Public Trusts Act, i.e since they were not registered till the time the Will was made by late Raja Pratap Singh on 16.11.1992, hence for this reason

it has to be held that Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties do not stand vested in the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust.

(ii) In order to understand this argument urged for the appellant/plaintiff, this Will dated 16.11.1992 of late Raja Pratap Singh in its entirety is

reproduced as under:-

“THIS IS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT:-Â

of me (Raja) PRATAP SINGH of KUCHAMAN (Nagaur) Rajasthan, son of Late Raja Hari Singh Ji Sahib of Kuchaman (At Nagaur) Raj. in the

state of RAJASTHAN made on the 6th November, 1992 in the year of our Lord one thousand Ninety two -Â

I hereby revoke all wills made by me at anytime heretofore particularly last Will Registered before the Chief Sub-Registrar Lucknow made on the 20

th November, 1979, Register No. III file 404 entered 5/11 No. 621. I also revoke my subsequent WILL made on the 5th June, 1987 at 16, Rana

Pratap Marg, Lucknow 226001 (U.P.)Â

I now appoint

(a) RAM JI DAS Advocate, son of Late Suraj Bux Singh alias Chaudhary Virender Singh, Chaudhari Building, Murtaja Hussain Road, Yahiyaganj,

Lucknow (U.P.)Â

ANDÂ

(b) Kunwar Narvir Shah, s/o M.K. Shardul Bikram Shah of Tehri- Garhwal, 16, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow (U.P.) 226001.

The above two will be my executors and direct that all my debts and most modest funeral expenses shall be paid as conveniently possible after my

death. If possible my funeral preferably held at Vrindavan or Kankhal as they find convenient.

This WILL revokes all previous WILL Made by me, specially last one made by me on the 5th June, 1987 at Lucknow and codicil made on the 8th

February, 1989.

I bequeath and give intoÂ

(1) I had owned and possessed my Kuchaman Fort, And Mahals-But on the26th day of February, 1978 I created a PUBLIC &CHARITABLE

TRUST which was registered before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay region, Bombay on the 15thSeptember, 1978. The Fort of

Kuchaman and Mahals of Kuchaman arealready vested in the Trustees which include myself, my wife Rani Prem Kumari, Shree B.K. Shah,

Chairman of Shree Shree MA ANANDMAYEE  TRUST, Shreemati Raj Lakshmi Shah, my youngest daughter and Swami  Bhaskaranandji

Maharaj C/o Shree Mata Anand Mayee Ashram, Kankhal (U.P.) which are in process of being registered before DeputyCharity Commissioner,

Greater Bombay Region. The fifth trustee being myself whose place will be filed as directed in the Trust. If the trustees agree then I would

recommend Kunwar Narvir Shah to take my place as TRUSTEE but I would prefer to make my wife Rani Prem Kumari as Chair person in my

place.

 Further Shree Shree MA ANANDMAYEE KUCHAMAN TRUST registered at Bombay and have also been registered on theÂ

25th February, 1979 and registered deed also registered on 25th February, 1979 at Kuchaman by Tehsildar Nawa (Dt. Nagaur) Rajasthan.

In order to maintain Trust property of Fort and Kuchaman I have entered in a lease agreement on the 10th October, 1992 on behalf of the Trustees

with M/s. RATHORE HOTELS & TOURS private Ltd. and have handed over possession of the place except certain places enumerated in the lease

for 48 years with provision of further being extended to 41 years on yearly rent Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) per annum payable in advance to the

TRUST. Rent to be increased regularly as provided in lease deed.

(2) I bequeath the Building No. 113, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi which is on leased land from Government of India has two flats, two garages and 4

Servant quarters. Out of this Bungalow I have already made ground floor flat, one garage and two quarters to my second daughter PRITI SINGH

where she is at present residing. After my demise she will have to pay half ground rent, half of the House Tax and other taxes subsequently

imposed.Â

(3) I bequeath first floor flat at present on rent at 113, Sunder Nagar which I am receiving but I bequeath the first floor

flat to my eldest daughter Kiran Raj Bisaria, Lalbagh, Lucknow. This flat has one garage and two servant quarters. Further I also bequeath terrace

with one room and bathroom also to her. She too will have to pay half ground rent, half of house tax and other taxes subsequently imposed.

(4) I bequeath the full amount derived from the Govt. of India for acquisition of my Kuchaman Bungalow, Jodhpur now to be received and

subsequently received to my third daughter Raj Lakshmi Shah absolutely as she and her husband Narvir Shah have taken all the pains and trouble to

procure this amount. I would however request them to give two Llacs 2,00,000/- out of this amount to their son Master Vivek Shah who is minor at

present. It is my ardent wish that he be made chairman of of Shree Shree Anadmayee Kuchaman Trust on attaining majority first by Rani Prem

Kumarie and latter by Raj Lakshmi Shah. Further, they will provide one Lac 1,00,000/- to my wife Rani Prem Kumaree if none of my liquid assets left

are available.

(5) From the liquid assets left in Banks I would like to give after clearing all dues of Income Tax, Wealth Tax and other Taxes as follows:-

(a) A sum of Rupees Thirty thousand to my rear sister Rani Chain Kumaree, 51, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

(b) A sum of Rupees Ten Thousand to all my personal servants like Mr. & Mrs. Nathu Singh, Narendra Singh, Murari Upadhya and other deserving

servants whom my wife Rani Prem Kumaree and Raj Lakshmi Shah deed fit and deserving.

(6) All my books whether at Kuchaman or at Lucknow should be preserved in some library provided by Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman

Trust.

(7) All my other personal belongings lying in safe, or in stores will be at the disposal of Rani Prem  Kumarie and subsequently by myÂ

daughter Raj Lakshmi Shah but request them to make good use or be fitting donations to my sentiments.

(8) All the ARMS lying at Kuchaman under licence and one 6 m.m. Pistol in my possession with ALL INDIA Licence should be disposed of

gradually through my son-in-law K. Narvir Shah in consultation with my wife Rani Prem Kumaree.

(9) All the few valuable swords which should be preserved in store and eventually pass to Master Vivek Shah when he attains majority. Till then they

be kept under supervision of Rani Prem Kumarie, Raj Lakshmi Shah and her husband Narvir Shah who is also one of the executors of this WILL.Â

(10) It is also my pious wish that out of assets left in my Bank like State Bank of India, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and also at United Commercial Bank-

Kuchaman will be available to my wife Prem Kumarie as she also has a joint account with me. I pray that she will pay as my loving gift of Rupee

fifteen thousand to each of my grand children like Rajina Raj Bisaria, Indritta Singh, Pia Singh and Smriti Shah.

In WITNESS WHEREOF I, the said (Raja) PRATAP SINGH hereto this my WILL set my hand the16th November, 1992 at 16, Rana Pratap Marg,

Lucknow-226001 (U.P.)Â

Signed by the said Testator in presence at the same time, who at his request in his presence of such other have subscribed our names as witnesses.

Sd/- Â Â

EXECUTANTÂ WITNESSESS :-

______Sd/-________ Â

Dr. A. K. Srivastava

_______Sd/-_________Â Â Â Â Â Â

(R.K. Gupta)

 AS (Retd.)â€​    (emphasis mine)

(iii) In my opinion, this argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff has already been effectively dealt with while rejecting the argument of there

allegedly existing a requirement as per the case of the appellant/plaintiff of information being given to the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay

Public Trusts Act, inasmuch as it has already been held by this Court that merely because the properties of the Trust are not informed to the Charity

Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts, the same would not mean that the public Trust will not be the owner of the properties which are

otherwise transferred to the Public Trust by complying with the requirement of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Also in my opinion, merely

mentioning in the Will dated 16.11.92 of Raja Pratap Singh that Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties “are in the process of being

registered before the Deputy Charity Commissioner of Greater Bombay regionâ€, i.e under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, will not take away from

the earlier part of the language of this paragraph which states that Raja Pratap Singh had owned the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal i.e ownership

being of the past with the further fact that in the next paragraph it is specifically mentioned that Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties already

stand vested in the trustees of the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust, Shree Shree Ma Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust .

(iv) It is also relevant to note that the argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff of properties of the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust

not being registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and hence ownership not vesting with the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust is a

meaningless argument merely because in the Will dated 16.11.1992 late Raja Pratap Singh has mentioned about the process of registering of the

properties in the name of the Trust, because by the Pranyas Patra/Settlement Deed which was registered on 28.2.1979 Kuchamal Mahal/Palace

and Fort already in accordance with law stood vested with and ownership transferred to the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust and thus in my

opinion writing of a subsequent document with respect to a transaction which already stands legally completed i.e of the respondent no. 5/defendant

no. 5/Trust becoming owner of the Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties in terms of the registered Pranays Patra dated 15.2.1979

Ex.PW1/D2, will not mean that a legally completed transaction can in any manner is nullified because of a mentioning by a narration in a subsequent

document being the Will of late Raja Pratap Singh dated 16.11.1992 of the aspect process of registering (i.e informing the factum of Pranyas Patra)

under the Bombay Public Trust Act.

(v) For all the aforesaid reasons, the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that Kuchaman Fort and Palace/Mahal properties have not

been vested and did not fall in the ownership of the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust, are absolutely without substance and are therefore

rejected.Â

The only argument which now remains to be dealt with by this Court is as to what is the effect of late Raja Pratap Singh taking Sanyas in the

Dusshera days of October, 1993 and he thereafter on 24.12.1993 taking a Jal Samadhi as a Sanyasi.

14(i)Â On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff it is argued that since late Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi, neither his Will dated 16.11.1992 will

operate and also that the properties which vested with the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust would also stand de-vested.

(ii) I have however completely failed to understand this argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff because firstly the fact that a person has

become a Sanyasi will only result in his civil death from the date he became a Sanyasi. Therefore by a person becoming a Sanyasi and

consequently there being a civil death of Sanyasi will only mean civil death on the particular date of a person who becomes a Sanyasi. This in law

doesn't mean that all acts done by a person when he was not a Sanyasi would stand invalidated and would become void simply because a person

has become a Sanyasi. No such law was cited before this Court that acts done by a person will become void or stands invalidated simply because that

person has become a Sanyasi subsequently. I therefore reject this argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. Also by the Sanyasi/Raja

Pratap Singh taking a Jal Samadhi (going to his death by Jal Samadhi) will not have any effect on these properties of which he was not the owner of

at the time of his death.

15(i) Reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High

Court in the case of Avasarala Kondol Row and Anr. Vs. Iswara Sanyasi Swamulavaru Alias Avasarala Kamarazu and Ors. 40 Ind. Cas. 535

MANU/TN/0261/1917to argue that in para 3 of this judgment it is mentioned that if at the time of making of a Will it is not anticipated that a person

will become a Sanyasi, then, a Will does not operate.Â

(ii) I have found no such ratio in the case Avasarala Kondol Row (supra) as is sought to be argued by the appellant/plaintiff. The relevant

observations of the Division Bench of Madras High Court were only to determine that defendant no. 1 in the suit had or had not become a Sanyasi.Â

The facts of the judgment in the case of Avasarala Kondol Row (supra)are peculiar because during the lifetime of a person who had become a

Sanyasi the Will of such Sanyasi, and who was defendant no.1 in the said suit, was sought to be enforced, and the Court consequently concentrated in

the said judgment as to whether at all the defendant no.1 in the said suit had become Sanyasi for his Will executed few days prior to becoming a

Sanyasi to become operative. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that it was not adequately proved in evidence that the person

had become a Sanyasi and once that is so there is no question of the Will of a person who was living operate for giving rights in the property to the

plaintiff to whom rights were given by the person/defendant no.1 in the said suit. (iii) I have also completely failed to understand this argument urged

on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff because nowhere in the judgment in the case of Avasarala Kondol Row (supra), it has at all been held that on a

person becoming a Sanyasi, and therefore having a civil death, any action taken by such a person when he was not a Sanaysi would become

invalidated. Obviously this could not be so held in that judgment in the case of Avasarala Kondol Row (supra),or any other judgment for that matter,

because a person during his life as a non-sanyasi and an ordinary citizen may have entered into Sale Deeds or Gift Deeds or so many any other

contractual transactions and it is not and cannot be the law that all such contractual transactions would become invalidated simply because at a

subsequent point of time, the person who has entered into contractual transactions had become a Sanyasi.

(iv) Clearly therefore, either on facts or on law, the judgment in the case of Avasarala Kondol Row (supra)in no manner helps the appellant/plaintiff to

successfully contend that simply because late Raja Pratap Singh had become a Sanyasi, only because of this reason the properties at Kuchaman Fort

and Palace/Mahal which were vested with the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust around 14 years prior to late Raja Pratap Singh becoming a

Sanyasi, would no longer vest with the respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5/Trust, and that too once the ownership of the Trust is legally complete by

means of a duly registered document as required by Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

16(i)Â Finally, it was argued on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that if the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the partition of two of the suit properties

being Kuchaman Fort and Palace, appellant/plaintiff is yet entitled to partition of various other properties as stated in Annexure-A to the plaint and

which properties include immovable properties as also moveable properties in the form of gold, silver jewellery and idols etc.

(ii) In my opinion this argument has been rightly rejected by the trial court by stating that appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove that the immovable

properties or moveable properties including the gold and silver jewellery and idols etc which are claimed by the appellant/plaintiff for being partitioned

were owned by late Raja Pratap Singh. In fact I would like to add another reason to the discussion and reasoning of the trial court that the so called

moveable properties, jewellery and idols are so vague that in view of the vagueness it is impossible to direct partition of the same. In order to

understand this aspect, para 42 of the impugned judgment which reproduces these properties of which partition is claimed is reproduced as under:-

“Re: Issue no. 4.

Onus of proof qua this issue has been on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the plaint has sought partition of the properties as mentioned in Annexure-A,

made part of the plaint. The said Annexure-A lists the following properties:

IMMOVABLE PROPERTIESÂ

Kuchaman FortÂ

Kuchaman Mahal (Palace)Â

All shops existing in Kuchaman MarketÂ

Bhairon ka talav (Lake)Â

Vacant land in :-

Kharia approximately 570 BighasÂ

PanwaliÂ

ShambaghÂ

Palade Fort,property some adjoining land.

Kuchaman Bungalow house in Jodhpur.

Sunder Nagar House, New DelhiÂ

Valuable books and manuscripts with paintings.

In the Fort Glass room with old gilding work and paintings (Kaach Mahal). In the Fort Gold Painted room with old Frescoes (sunehri Burj).

MOVABLE PROPERTIES

GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY

(i) Gold jewellery studded with diamonds, emeralds, pearls, pukhraj and rubies.

(ii) Gold bricks, sovereigns and guineas.

(iii) Gold jewellery studded with diamonds, emeralds etc. worn by servants for ceremonial occasions.

(iv) Ceremonial jewellery including sarpechas to be worn on turbans and emeraldkantas.

(v) Gold jewellery worn by camels, elephants & horses on state occasions and festivals.

Arms, guns and armour, muskets with gilded ceremonial swords.

Ceremonial Gold, musnads, gaddis, gilded, carpets etc.

Old and valuable antiques.

Old valuable moghul textiles, brocades etc.

Valuable paintings.

Frescoes and gildings.

Chandeliers.

Silver and wooden furniture.

Household effects such as very valuable silver crockeries, cutlery, gold and silver utensils.Â

Valuable carpets.

Baba's effects, Kharoos, his iron, artefacts.

Gangeur statues and the jewellery of Gangeur Mata which is in gold, emerald.

Jhoolas.

Antique carved doors.

Palkis.

Temple effects.

Religious idols :

(i) Idols of Shiva, Parvathi, seven stones of Shivalingas, the statue of papu Rathore, Ganesh, Nandis, Parvathi Statues, Hanuman statue which are

in the Fort.

(ii) The statue of Natwarlalji and temple effects in the Palace.

(iii) Kalimatha statue in the house with her gold and silver jewellery studded with diamonds, pukhraj, emeralds, rubies, pearls and strings of emerald

pearls.

(iv)Old statues made of black stones in the Palace.

(v) Family deity of Nag Necha made of spatile, and its silver throne and all its other possessions.

(vi) Original Meerabhi statue in the private temple of charbhuja and

Satyanarayan in the city of Kuchaman.â€​

(iii)Â Trial court has rightly rejected the claim of partition of these properties by holding, and as stated above, the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove

that such properties were owned by late Raja Pratap Singh and also on account of vagueness of the properties, and this is so held by the trial court in

para 44 of the impugned judgment, and this para 44 reads as under:-

“44. From a reading of Will Ex. DW1/8, which has been duly proved as valid Will of Raja Pratap Singh, it can be discerned that properties, namely,

Fort and Mahals of Kuchaman, property no. 113, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and the flats, garages, servant quarters and terrace etc. existing thereon,

amount derived from the Government of India for acquisition of Kuchaman Banglow, Jodhpur, liquid assets left in the banks, books, personal

belongings of Raja Pratap Singh lying in safe or in stores, Arms lying at Kuchaman, swords and assets left at banks like State Bank of India and

United Commercial Bank have been specifically dealt with by Raja Pratap Singh in his last will Ex. DW1/8 and have been bequeathed. In so far

asother properties mentioned in Annexure-A are concerned, thedefendants in their written statement have denied the same being ownedby Raja

Pratap Singh at the time of his death. The plaintiff during herevidence has merely asserted that the properties mentioned in Annexure-Awere left by

Raja Pratap Singh, but no evidence has been led to prove theexistence of the said properties as belonging to Raja Pratap Singh at the timeof his death.

During her cross examination PW1 Priti Pratap Singh admittedthat she had no documents or details with regard to the vacant landproperties, Paladi

Fort and Kuchaman bunglow at Jodhpurmentioned by her in Annexure-A to the plaint. As regards to the movableproperties mentioned in Annexure-A

to the plaint, PW1 Priti Pratap Singhduring her cross examination deposed that she had photographs of some ofthem but she could not give the exact

details of the same. During her crossexamination PW1 Priti Pratap Singh admitted that the items no. 2 to 6mentioned in Annexure-A to the plaint

belong to a public charitable trust.No evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove that at the time of hisdeath Raja Pratap Singh left properties,

namely, shops existing inKuchaman Market, Bhairon ka talav (lake), vacant land in Kharia(approximately 570 Bighas), Panwali, Shambagh and Palade

Fort and othermovable properties. In the absence of plausible evidence led by the plaintiff,the plaintiff has failed to prove that Raja Pratap Singh left

behind anyproperties other than those mentioned in Will Ex. DW1/8. Issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. â€​

(iv). I would also like to observe that as per the provision of Order VII Rule 3 CPC when the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, the

plaint has to contain sufficient description to identify the property such as by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement etc, and it is seen that so

far as the immovable properties are concerned of which partition is claimed, there are no details whatsoever as to what are the field numbers or

municipal numbers of these properties, and what is the area of those properties etc. etc . Therefore in view of the provision of Order VII Rule 3

CPC, partition as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect to the vague immovable properties, cannot be granted, and has rightly been rejected by

the trial court.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. In my opinion the claim of the appellant/plaintiff for partition of the vague

properties, and especially of the properties being Kuchaman Fort and Palace which were already vested with the respondent no. 5/defendant no.

5/Trust; and that too to the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff way back since the year 1979 with respect to the suit having been filed in the year

1994, the suit was therefore completely frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2

lacs, and these costs shall be paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent no.5/defendant

no.5/Trust in the ratio of 50% each, within a period of six weeks from today. All pending applications also stand disposed of.   Â