Home Latest News HC verdict on the Faridkot Royals property dispute: Daughters to get a lion’s share of property-Chandigarh

HC verdict on the Faridkot Royals property dispute: Daughters to get a lion’s share of property-Chandigarh

by Admin
0 comment

The Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana on Monday confirmed the decision of the court of Chandigarh to grant his two daughters Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur a majority stake in Maharaja Faridkot Harinder Singh Brararar. The court also decided that the descendants of the brother of the Maharaja, Manjeet Indera Singh, will receive the share of their mother Mohinder Kaur.

Harinder, who was crowned at the age of three in 1918, was the last ruler of the Faridkot estate and was married to Narinda Kaur. The royal couple had three daughters, Amrit Kaur, Deep Kaur and Maheepinder Kaur, and a son, Harmohinder Singh. Her son died in a car accident in 1981. One of the maharajahs of seven Sikh princes, Harinder, died in 1989 leaving his most important possessions in Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana and Chandigar.

Maharawal Hevaji Trust is considering legal options

  • Faced with a second setback in a 28-year battle for the royal legacy, the Maharawal Hevaji Trust will seek ways to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab and Haryana.
  • said Maharawal Khewaji Jagir Singh Saran, Chairman of the Foundation’s Board: We have received a copy of the mission and a team of lawyers is assessing the mission and a decision will be made accordingly.

Two lawyers associated with the case, senior lawyer MS Hira and Vivek Bhandari, said that the value of the property ₹20, exceeds 1,000 crores. According to the court’s decision, 37.5% would be allocated to each of the two girls and 25% to the Bharat Indera Singh family.

Maharaja Harinder Singh was crowned in 1918 at the age of 3 and died in 1989.

Maheepinder Kaur died like an old girl, Deepinder Kaur died in a lawsuit. Amrit Kaur lives in Chandigar.

The property dispute began shortly after Maharaja’s death in October 1989, after the publication of a will in which he left his property to the Maharwal Hevaji Trust, which is headed by his daughter Deepinder Kaur.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the case reached 2018, after the court of Chandigar had declared the trust fund invalid and transferred the property to the girls.

  • October 1989: Maharaja Harinder Singh is dying. He inherits his property to trust the surfaces.
  • October 1992: Amrit Kaur’s daughter sues and claims 1/3 of the property.
  • July 2013: The court in Chandigar decided that the year 1982 would be manipulated. According to Hindustani inheritance law, the property is transferred to the two sisters and an appeal is lodged against the order.
  • February 2018: The additional court confirms the order of the civil court, all parties appeal to the SC.

The Raj Mohan Singh High Judicial Collegium decided that according to Hindustani inheritance law, property must be inherited by the daughters and the mother. Since Mohinder Kaur’s mother was still alive at the time of the Maharajah’s death, she too would have inherited the property and would now have been taken over by Manjeet Indera Singh’s family according to his will.

Amrit Kaur bet the entire estate under the Faridcot Property Act 1948. Bharat Inder Singh determined his inheritance on the basis of the rule of primogeniture, according to which property rights are given to the first-born son or the oldest male relative currently alive. Deepinder Kaur made this claim based on the validity of the will and trust created.

The only surviving daughter of Maharajah Harinder Singh is Amrit Kaur.

The Court ruled that the Property Act 1948 did not enter into force after the entry into force of the Indian Constitution and does not apply to the inheritance of real estate. The court stated that, as a rule, the succession should be governed by the law of personal succession. Even the rights and privileges granted to the leader ended with his death as purely personal, it is said.

With regard to the disputed will, the court ruled that the trustees had conspired to draw up a will for the seizure of property. It has been proven that the will was forged, invented, manufactured and concealed under suspicious circumstances…, the court said.

Related Posts