Rajkot State
This article has been extracted from THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA , 1908. OXFORD, AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. |
Note: National, provincial and district boundaries have changed considerably since 1908. Typically, old states, ‘divisions’ and districts have been broken into smaller units, and many tahsils upgraded to districts. Some units have since been renamed. Therefore, this article is being posted mainly for its historical value.
Contents |
1908
State in the Kathiawar Political Agency, Bombay, lying between 22 3' and 22 27' N. and 70 46' and 71 9' E , with an area of 282 square miles. It is an undulating country, with a stony soil watered by several streams, of which the Aji is perennial. The climate, though hot in the months of April, May, and October, is generally healthy. The annual rainfall averages from 20 to 25 inches.
Rajkot is an offshoot of Navanagar. The founder of the house was Kunwar Vibhoji, younger son of Ajoji, a great-grandson of Jam Raval. In 1807 the ruler executed the usual engagements. The family follows the rule of primogeniture in matters of succession, and holds a sanad authorizing adoption. The chief is entitled to a salute of 9 guns, and is adaressed as Thakur Sahib.
The population at the last four enumerations was: (1872) 36,770, (1881) 46,5403 (1891) 49*958, and (1901) 49,795. Hindus number 40,153, Musalmans 6,251, and Jains 3,352. The only town is RAJKOT, the capital, and there are 60 villages.
The total area under cultivation is 175 square miles, of which 14 square miles are irrigated. There is no uniform and fixed revenue system in the State, for 28 villages fall under the bhdgbatai or share of produce system and 3 under the vighoti or cash assessment system. The chief irrigational work is the Lalpuri tank, which supplies 3 square miles. Horse-breeding is carried on in a State paddock, contain- ing 2 stallions and 30 mares and costing about Rs. 5,000. Cattle- breeding also receives some attention. The common kinds of grain, sugar-cane, and cotton are the principal crops. They are exported from Gogha and Jodiya, and to a certain extent by rail from Wadhwan The Jetalsar-Rajkot, Morvi, and Jamnagar Railways pass through the State. Carts are the chief means of transport, but pack-bullocks and horses are also employed. Cotton and woollen cloth are the principal manu- factures, and there is one ginning factory. Exports, consisting chiefly of cotton yarn, molasses, and hides, were valued at 3 lakhs in 1903-4 ; and imports, chiefly timber, cotton, silk, and ivory, at 10 lakhs.
The State ranks as a second-class State in Kathiawar. The chief has power to try his own subjects foi capital offences. The estimated gross revenue is 3 lakhs, chiefly derived from land (2 lakhs). A tribute of Rs. 21,321 is paid jointly to the British Government and the Nawab of Junagarh. The State contains 3 municipalities, and 19 schools with a total of 1,875 pupils, of whom 359 are girls. It maintains an armed police force of 153 men, of whom 15 are mounted (1905). There are two dispensaries affording relief annually to 27,815 patients, and a travelling hospital assistant is engaged to carry medical relief to outlying villages. In 1903-4 the number of persons vaccinated was 1,122.
AFTER 1947
Property dispute
As in 2021
Sunil Baghel, Sep 30, 2021: The Times of India
From: Sunil Baghel, Sep 30, 2021: The Times of India
The reigning titular king of Rajkot, Mandhatasinh, has been dragged to court by his sister and his first cousin’s nephew. All of India is watching the two cases with great interest because they will not only decide a royal heritage, but also test a slew of Hindu succession laws
One of the country’s biggest property disputes is currently playing out in a civil court in Gujarat’s Rajkot. The feuding parties are the blue-blooded Rajkot royals – with the reigning titular king Mandhatasinh Jadeja on the one side and one of his sisters and a nephew on the other.
What is at stake is property worth Rs 4,500 crore, including the Ranjit Vilas Palace, where Mandhatasinh resides; a single land parcel of over 550 acres in Madhapar; Randarda Lake Farm spread over 1.40 lakh sq metres; and a long list of antiques, art works, silver furniture, a silver chariot, vintage cars, palanquins, jewellery, swords, daggers and cannons.
While the first case filed by the king’s sister makes some serious allegations, including accusations of cheating and seeks her share; the second filed by his first-cousin’s nephew, seeks partition of all assets going back three generations. Both have challenged he wills by which all the property is now under Mandhatasinh’s control. Their central argument is that ancestral property cannot be passed on via a will and should be distributed among the legal heirs.
While the suit filed by Mandhatasinh’s sister, Ambalika Devi, seeks one-fifth share for herself in all the properties; his first-cousin’s nephew, 25-year old Ransurvirsinh Jadeja, has sought partition of the entire estate among all the legal heirs starting right from Mandhatasinh’s grandfather, Pradyumansinh Jadeja.
Pradyumansinh was the 15th king of Rajkot, and Mandhatasinh Ambalika Devi and Ransurvirsinh are his direct descendants. Pradyumansinh’s elder son Manoharsinh Jadeja took over the reins of the estate from his father as the 16th king and is now followed by his son Mandhatasinh. Manoharsinh was also a three-term elected member of the legislative assembly and served as a minister in the cabinet of the state of Gujarat, holding different portfolios at different times. Ransurvirsinh is one of the grandchildren of Manoharsinh’s younger brother Prahladsinh.
The suit filed by Ambalika Devi alleges that Mandhatasinh made her sign a release deed during a visit to Rajkot in June 2019, which said that she was relinquishing her rights on the inheritance property. She was told, the suit alleges, that it was for the purpose of making a mutation entry (entry in the government land/revenue records) as also for easy administration of the family temple at Ashapura. She was also made to execute two powers of attorney with respect to the same and was promised, the suit says, by Mandhatasinh that her one-fifth share in the properties will eventually be transferred to her.
The suit, filed through advocate Ketan Sindhava, names her two sisters and their mother Mankumaridevi as respondents in the case. The suit also challenges her father Manoharsinh’s will dated July 6, 2013, which was produced by Mandhatasinh before an additional collector to mutate the entry in revenue records. Manoharsinh Jadeja passed away in September 2018.
In the suit, Ambalika Devi argues that her father (Manoharsinh) had no legal right to make a will for inherited properties, and therefore, she cannot be deprived of her rights in the same.
The suit says she came to know of Mandhatasinh’s intentions when his family insulted her son at the former’s coronation last year. At the ceremony, Mandhatasinh and his wife told Ambalika Devi’s son that after the demise of Manoharsinh, there was no need for them (Mandhatasinh’s family and Ambalika Devi’s family) to remain in touch.
The family later got a source to dig out the documents signed by Ambalika Devi after this incident and came to know about what exactly had happened, the suit adds.
The suit was scheduled for a hearing on September 20, 2021, but the court adjourned the case after Mandhatasinh’s side filed a reply. The next hearing has been scheduled for October 11.
The partition suit Filed two months after Ambalika Devi’s suit, Ransurvirsinh’s suit seeks a partition of the entire ancestral property right from the time Pradyumansinh – Ransurvirsinh’s great grandfather and Mandhatasinh’s grandfather – occupied the throne.
Fourteen other descendants have been named as formal respondents in the suit, which seeks relief only against Mandhatasinh as he is the beneficiary of all the ‘ancestral properties’. The suit says that all the coparcenary [joint heirship] properties be divided among all the legal heirs and till such time that the suit is decided, Mandhatasinh should be barred in dealing with any of the properties.
The suit adds that based on an order passed by a mamlatdar (local revenue officer) on June 10, 2016, it is learnt that late Manoharsinh (one of Pradyumansinh’s son and Mandhatasinh’s father) has stated that Pradyumansinh had executed a will and bequeathed properties to him (Manoharsinh).
The suit further argues that late Manoharsinh does not seem to have obtained probate of any will of his father, or letters of administration from a competent court, in absence of a will, as per law. A will needs to be ratified by a competent court, and in absence of a will, legal heirs of the concerned deceased need to obtain an order for letters of administration so that they can exercise their rights over such properties.
The suit, filed through Aavocate D M Patel, goes on to cite the Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act and various case laws to substantiate the argument. A notice was issued to all the respondents by a civil court in Rajkot on September 17 and the case will now be heard on October 29.
Mandhatasinh’s response Mandhatasinh has denied every allegation made by Ambalika Devi and has claimed the suit was filed with malafide intentions to extract money from him. It also invokes the Rule of Primogeniture. The Rule of Primogeniture – an unwritten system followed by most of the princely estates in India – says the eldest son or the firstborn son succeeded the entire property of the last holder. The rest of the legal heirs were normally paid a maintenance amount from the estate. The entire estate, in such a scenario, was rendered indivisible.
Though the reply has been filed in Ambalika Devi’s suit, certain parts of it, indirectly, answer issues raised in Ransurvirsinh’s suit as well.
The reply says that the entire estate of Mandhatasinh’s grandfather Pradyumansinh belongs to him not to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or any ancestors because it was declared an ‘independent property’ by the Government of India in February 1948, based on a covenant signed between Pradyumansinh and the government. The reply contends that, therefore, Pradyumansinh had the right to make a will and so did Manoharsinh. It then argues that the Rule of Primogeniture, in any case, makes the estate indivisible and therefore puts it out of the purview of an HUF or ancestral property. According to the reply, filed through Advocate H M Udani, Ambalika Devi has known about her father’s will since a very long time and that the release deed was with her for four days before it was executed in June 2019. It says that the other two sisters had also executed a release deed just a month before Ambalika Devi did, and that Ambalika Devi’s husband is a signatory as a ‘confirming party’ to it and their two sons were also present when the document was registered.
It says that as per Manoharsinh’s will of 2013, all three sisters – including Ambalika Devi – have been paid Rs 1.5 crore each, of which the first tranche of Rs 10 lakh was paid to Ambalika Devi in 2018, followed by the balance amount around the time of registration of the release deed.
It says that the law in the state of Gujarat does not require obtaining probate of a will or obtaining letters of administration for the estate of a deceased who dies without a will, and therefore, the burden to falsify the will is on the one who makes such allegations.
The reply denies that Mandhatasinh had ever promised Ambalika Devi that her one-fifth share will be transferred in her name. It also denies the incident where Mandhatasinh and his wife are alleged to have insulted Ambalika Devi’s younger son.
It also seeks proof from Ambalika Devi of the property mentioned in her suit being ancestral or meeting the definition of an HUF. In absence of all of this, the reply seeks dismissal of Ambalika Devi’s suit and no grant of any interim relief. Next date for hearing is October 11.
B: As in Oct
Sunil Baghel, Oct 12, 2021: The Times of India
Property disputes arise in every family but it’s not every day that Rs 4,500 crore is at stake. In Gujarat’s Rajkot, two erstwhile royals have gone to court for a share of the family pie that includes Ranjit Vilas Palace, where the titular king Mandhatasinh Jadeja resides, a 550-acre plot of land in Madhapar, Randarda Lake Farm spread over 1.4 lakh sqm, besides antiques, artworks, silver furniture, a silver chariot, vintage cars, chariots and palanquins, heirloom jewellery, swords, daggers and cannon.
There are two suits before a Rajkot civil court. Mandhatasinh’s sister Ambalika Devi filed the first for a fifth part of all the property he inherited. Two months later, his first-cousin’s son, 25-year-old Ransurvirsinh Jadeja, sought partition of the entire estate “by metes and bounds” (boundaries defined by natural or manmade landmarks) among all the legal heirs of Mandhatasinh’s grandfather Pradyumansinh Jadeja. Both suits challenge the wills by which all the property is now under Mandhatasinh’s control, and argue that ancestral property cannot be passed on via a will and should be distributed among all legal heirs.
Who’s who in the feud
The disputes can be hard to understand without a grasp of who’s who in this story. Pradyumansinh Jadeja was the 15th king or ‘thakore saheb’ of Rajkot. After him, his elder son Manoharsinh became king, and when he died in September 2018, his son Mandhatasinh became the 17th king, although in name only. Ambalika is Manoharsinh’s daughter while Ransurvirsinh is a grandson of Manoharsinh’s younger brother Prahladsinh. Which means both are direct descendants of Pradyumansinh.
Ambalika’s case
The suit filed by Ambalika alleges that when she visited Rajkot in June 2019, Mandhatasinh persuaded her to sign a release deed to give up her claim on the inheritance property, promising that her one-fifth share would eventually be transferred to her. She says she was told the release deed was needed to make a mutation entry (in the government land/revenue records) and for the easy administration of the family temple at Ashapura. She also executed two powers of attorney for this.
Her suit alleges it was a conspiracy against her and a betrayal of the brother-sister bond. It names her two sisters and their mother Mankumaridevi as respondents, and challenges her father Manoharsinh’s will of July 6, 2013, which Mandhatasinh used to mutate the entry in revenue records. Ambalika argues she cannot be deprived of her share as her father had no legal right to bequeath his inherited property.
Terms between Ambalika and Mandhatasinh soured after she felt slighted at his coronation last year. Mandhatasinh and his wife allegedly told Ambalika’s son that after Manoharsinh’s demise their families did not need to remain in touch. Her suit was scheduled for hearing on September 20, but the court adjourned it after Mandhatasinh’s side filed a reply.
Ransurvirsinh’s case
Ransurvirsinh moved court two months after Ambalika and wants a division of his greatgrandfather Pradyumansinh’s property. His suit names 14 other descendants as formal respondents but seeks relief only against Mandhatasinh, who is the sole beneficiary of all the property. The suit says Mandhatasinh should be barred from dealing with the property until its division among all the legal heirs. The suit also questions the late Manoharsinh’s inheritance based on his father Pradyumansinh’s will. It says Manoharsinh seemingly did not obtain a probate (verification) of the will, nor letters of administration from a court. Legally, a will needs to be ratified by a court, and in the absence of a will the heirs cannot exercise their rights over the property without letters of administration from a court.
A Rajkot civil court issued notice to all the respondents on September 17 and the case will be heard on October 29.
Mandhatasinh’s response
In his reply to Ambalika’s suit, Mandhatasinh denied every allegation and claimed she filed it to extract money from him. It invokes the rule of primogeniture – an unwritten rule of succession in royal families that says the eldest son inherits the entire property while other legal heirs get maintenance from the estate, so that it remains undivided. Parts of Mandhatasinh’s reply answer issues raised in Ransurvirsinh’s suit as well. It says his grandfather Pradyumansinh’s estate belongs to him – not to a Hindu undivided family (HUF) – as it was declared an ‘independent property’ by the government in February 1948. Therefore, Pradyumansinh had the right to make a will, and so did Manoharsinh. It also argues the rule of primogeniture, in any case, makes the estate indivisible, taking it out of the purview of HUF or ancestral property laws.
Mandhatasinh’s reply says Ambalika knew about her father’s will and had the release deed for four days before it was executed in June 2019. Ambalika’s husband signed it as a ‘confirming party’ and their two sons were present when it was registered. Mandhatasinh’s two other sisters had executed release deeds a month before Ambalika. As per Manoharsinh’s 2013 will, the three sisters had been paid Rs 1.5 crore each. As for obtaining probate or letters of administration for a will, Mandhatasinh’s reply says Gujarat law does not require these. Therefore, a will cannot be voided, and the burden to disprove it lies on the accuser. Mandhatasinh denies promising Ambalika a fifth part of the property, or insulting her younger son at the coronation ceremony. His reply also says if Ambalika is unable to show how her suit is about an HUF or ancestral property, it should be dismissed without any interim relief.
