Karnataka High Court Upholds Royal Estate Immunity from Standard Succession Laws

Constitutional Amendments and Private Property

The Karnataka High Court has determined that the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India, which ended privy purses and royal titles, did not nullify Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Justice M.G.S. Kamal ruled that legal protections for 'impartible estates'—properties inherited by a single heir under historical agreements—remain legally sound. The court clarified that while Articles 291 and 362 were repealed to remove state-funded guarantees and ceremonial dignities, these changes did not extend to the private property rights or the 'Gaddi' (ceremonial throne) of former rulers.

Dispute Over the Primogeniture Rule

The legal challenge originated from internal family disputes within the former royal houses of Mysore and Sandur. Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs, grandson of Mysore's last ruler Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, joined Venkatrao Y. Ghorpade and Gayatri Ghorpade of the Sandur royal family in seeking to strike down Section 5(ii). The petitioners argued that the concept of an indivisible estate had lost its relevance following the 1971 constitutional shifts. However, other family members, including Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, invoked the provision to maintain that certain assets are exempt from partition among all heirs.

Distinction Between Throne and Private Assets

In dismissing the petitions, the court emphasized that the merger agreements signed during India's independence categorized assets into three distinct areas: privy purses, private properties, and succession to the Gaddi. The ruling noted that:

• Privy purses and administrative privileges were fully abolished by Article 363-A.
• Private properties notified during the merger remain subject to standard inheritance unless specified otherwise.
• The ceremonial throne or 'Gaddi' continues to devolve according to the rule of primogeniture under existing covenants.

Justice Kamal noted that while the functional power of the Gaddi may have diminished, it remains a relevant subject from a customary and practical perspective. The court concluded that Section 5(ii) provides a specific exemption for estates tied to pre-independence enactments or agreements with the Government of India, ensuring those specific legacies do not fall under the general partition requirements of the Hindu Succession Act.

Source: The Hindu — National