Says end of privy purses doesn’t erase inheritance rulesBengaluru: Karnataka high court has refused to strike down a provision of the Hindu Succession Act dealing with inheritance in the families of former princely rulers, holding that it continues to have legal relevance despite the abolition of privy purses more than five decades ago.Justice MGS Kamal dismissed two petitions filed by descendants of the erstwhile royal families of Mysuru and Sandur. The petitioners contended that Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had become redundant after the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1971, which abolished privy purses and ended official recognition of former rulers.One petition was filed by Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs, who claims to be the son of Gayathri Devi, one of the daughters of the last Maharaja of Mysore, Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar. The other was filed by Venkatrao Y Ghorpade and Gayatri Ghorpade, children of the erstwhile Maharaja of Sandur. Both are involved in separate family property disputes and sought deletion of Section 5(ii), arguing that the provision is outdated and open to misuse.Section 5(ii) states that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to estates that pass to a single heir under agreements entered into between former princely rulers and the Govt of India before the Act came into force. The petitioners argued that with privy purses and official recognition of rulers abolished in 1971, this exemption should also cease to exist.Examining the Instruments of Merger signed by the princely states of Mysuru (1950) and Sandur (1949), the court noted that the agreements dealt with three distinct matters: payment of privy purses and recognition of titles and privileges, ownership of the rulers’ private properties, and succession to the Gaddi (throne) according to existing law and custom.Justice Kamal observed that while the 26th constitutional amendment abolished privy purses, titles, and sovereign privileges, it did not affect succession to an impartible estate or the ceremonial Gaddi where succession continues to be governed by merger agreements and customary law.The court also relied on a Supreme Court ruling that private properties of former rulers remain governed by the personal law applicable to the family, such as Hindu Succession Act. Only an impartible estate or ceremonial throne, where one exists, continues to follow the traditional rule of primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest heir), unless proved otherwise.Holding that the end of princely rule did not render Section 5(ii) meaningless or unconstitutional, the high court found no grounds to declare the provision redundant or direct its removal from the statute book, and dismissed both petitions.
