After 40-year court battle with State, SC restores Constituent Assembly member’s historic estates to his charitable trust

The Supreme Court, the founding council member and former parliamentary Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh’s 3,000 Crore History property, Rajasthan province after a four -year trial on the will of a confidence created for help.

The court’s last order, published on Saturday, will first serve as a precedent against the government that intervenes or warns the government without proving the lack of the intestine (absence of a will) and the lack of heirs.

BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, Mr. Singh, founded in 1985 by the former Rajasthan royal within the framework of the constitution, an organization that plays a role in encouraging education and progressing in science, literature in India.

The properties were locked in disagreement with the state of Rajasthan, who claimed about the Escheat principle (the heir to the state). The state objected to the will, claiming that Mr. Singh had died without a will.

The state refused to give up the case even after controlling or verifying the reality of a section of the Supreme Court of Delhi, the will of the Bank of Delhi.

While maintaining the Supreme Court’s decision, the Apex Court’s counter observed that the government government was a “foreign .. locus stand (The right to bring a dispute to the court) to challenge the old royal will.

“When only one bowel Hindu’s property will fall to the government in accordance with the 29th part of the Hindu Free Free of the property of Hindu’s property.

The APEX Court also stated that a trial grant by a competent legal court could only be challenged by a appeal of the testament or by asking for cancellation. The state cannot assume locus stand Only 1956 by calling the Rajasthan Escheat Law.

“Rajasthan province in the current case locus stand To object to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Escheat Power of the Testament of the Testament of the Testament [Singh]. Chapter 29 of the law is not valid in the current case, because this is not a cases of intestinal successor, but the will of the will is one of the testament since the problem of the will is given by the Supreme Court. ”