{"id":194328,"date":"2004-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004"},"modified":"2017-06-25T07:31:04","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T02:01:04","slug":"dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5943-5945 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nDr. Karan Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. Sabharwal & Dr.AR.Lakshmanan.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Y.K.Sabharwal, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe main issue to be determined in these appeals is whether 563 articles
\nlying in ‘Toshakhana’ (Treasury of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) can be
\ndeclared as the private property of the appellant or this issue deserves fresh
\ndetermination by Government of India or it be referred to arbitration for
\nadjudication.  The background under which the issue has come up for
\nconsideration may first be noticed.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant is son of Maharaja Hari Singh, ex-ruler of Jammu and
\nKashmir.  An instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir was executed by
\nMaharaja Hari Singh on 26th October, 1947.  The articles in question comprising
\nof jewellery and gold articles etc. were transferred from Toshakhana at Jammu to
\nToshakhana at Srinagar on 17th September, 1951.  Maharaja Hari Singh died on
\n26th April, 1961.  During his lifetime, Maharaja Hari Singh did not claim the
\narticles in question as private property.  The Government of India, in pursuance of
\nclause (22) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India, recognized appellant as a
\nsuccessor to late Maharaja Sir Hari Singh w.e.f. 26th April, 1961.  By Constitution
\n(Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, rulership was abolished w.e.f. 28th
\nDecember, 1971.  The abolition, however, did not affect the ownership of the
\nrulers of their private property as distinct from State property.
\nThe appellant made a representation dated 2nd December, 1983 to the
\nMinistry of Home Affairs claiming that the articles lying in the Toshakhana,
\nSrinagar, i.e., the heirlooms , wearing apparel , gold and silver utensils and cutlery,
\nfurniture, fixtures and carpets  etc. are the property of the ruler family of Jammu
\nand Kashmir coming from generation to generation since the inception of the
\nrulership and are his personal property.  The Ministry was requested to issue
\nimmediate instructions to the State Government for handing over all the articles to
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn February 1984, a writ petition was filed in Jammu and Kashmir High
\nCourt, inter alia, praying for issue of directions to the Union of India, Ministry of
\nHome Affairs to decide and adjudicate upon the representation dated 2nd
\nDecember, 1983.  During the pendency of the writ petition, the representation of
\nthe appellant was rejected by the Union of India on 24th September, 1984.  In its
\ncommunication dated 24th September, 1984 sent to the appellant, the Union of
\nIndia, inter alia, noticed that in response to Government’s letter dated 18th May,
\n1949, Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter dated 1st June, 1949 addressed to late
\nSardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the then Minister of Home Affairs, had sent a list of his
\nprivate properties.  There is no mention of jewellery or regalia in question in the
\nsaid list.  The said list of private properties given by the Maharaja Hari Singh was
\naccepted by the Government of India and duly communicated by letter dated 9th
\nJune, 1949 to Maharaja Hari Singh.  It was also stated that “it may incidentally be
\npointed out that in your autobiography entitled ‘Heir Apparent’ and statements to
\nthe Press, you have acknowledged that the treasure lying in the Toshakhana had
\nbeen given to the State”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the writ petition, the High Court rejected the application of the appellant
\nfor inspection of the articles.  The boxes of jewellery were, however, ordered to be
\nsealed \tby order dated 20th July, 1985.  This Court, on the appeal of the appellant,
\nsetting aside the order of the High Court, directed opening of those boxes for the
\npurpose of inspection by the Member, Central Board of Direct Taxes who was to
\nbe accompanied by Director General of Archaelogical Survey of India, Director
\nAntiques, Director, National Museum and approved valuers of jewellery for
\ndetermining the true nature and character of the same and whether any and, if so,
\nwhat items constitute heirlooms articles of personal use of the appellant and his
\nfamily.  The inspection was directed to be taken in the presence of the appellant’s
\nrepresentative as also a representative of the State Government (See Dr. Karan
\nSingh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.<\/a> [(1986) 1 SCC 541].  In terms of this
\ndecision, the inspection was carried out and report submitted to the High Court.
\n\tThe appellant amended the writ petition and sought quashing of the
\nGovernment’s decision as contained in the communication dated 24th September,
\n1984.  Since the Government had also rejected the application of the appellant
\nseeking review of its decision dated 24th September, 1984, the appellant also
\nsought quashing of the rejection of his review application dated 9th October, 1984.
\nFurther, a declaration was sought that the heirlooms in the custody of Toshakhana,
\nSrinagar (563 items) are the personal properties of the appellant.
\n\tThe writ petition was partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt.  The appellant was declared rightful owner of ‘heirlooms’ consisting of 42
\nitems of jewellery mentioned in appendix ‘C’ to the report of the Inspection
\nCommittee appointed by this Court.  The State Government was directed to
\ndeliver possession thereof to the appellant.  The orders of the Government of
\nIndia, rejecting the representation and declining to review the said order were
\nquashed.  The Government of India was directed to reconsider the appellant’s
\nrepresentation after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to all the parties
\ninvolved in the matter with regard to the claim of the items of jewellery mentioned
\nin appendix ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the report of the Inspection Committee above referred.
\n\tThe judgment of learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellant, the
\nState Government and the Union of India by each filing Letters Patent Appeal, the
\nappellant claiming that all the articles ought to have been declared as his private
\nproperty and the State Government and Union of India claiming that the writ
\npetition should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
\nBy the impugned judgment, all the three Letters Patent Appeals have been
\ndecided.  The Division Bench has held that the appellant has not put forward any
\nclaim much less such claim having been recognized by the Union of India for 30
\nyears and all those years the appellant did not raise his little finger in respect of
\nthese movables.  The Division Bench came to the conclusion that looking to the
\nnature and circumstances and the conduct of the appellant, it is evident that till
\n1983, no attempt whatsoever was made, either by the ex-ruler or by the appellant,
\nto claim these properties as private properties.  The Division Bench held that either
\nthere was relinquishment of right or waiver voluntarily.  The finding of learned
\nSingle Judge in respect of 42 items was reversed.  The Division Bench further held
\nthat regard being had to the provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution of India,
\nany claim arising out of such dispute by the ex-ruler  cannot  be  granted  by a
\ncourt of law for the purpose of giving relief.  The Division Bench has concluded
\nthat the appellant has failed to make a case establishing his right over the valuable
\nmoveables.  Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and
\nappeals filed by the State and the Union of India have been allowed.
\n\tMr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
\ncontends that the Division Bench is in error in coming to the conclusion that the
\nappellant has abandoned, relinquished or waived  his right  and in dismissing the
\nwrit petition.  On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment Mr. Raju
\nRamachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India
\nand Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, learned Advocate General of the State contend that the
\nwrit petition was not maintainable in view of bar contained in Article 363 of the
\nConstitution of India and, even otherwise, the appellant had no right to reopen the
\nissue after lapse of 30 years besides there being highly disputed questions of fact.
\n\tAt the outset, we may note that there has never been any declaration that
\nthe articles in question were private properties of Maharaja Hari Singh or that of
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
With the aforesaid factual backdrop, the questions that arise for
\nconsideration are :\n<\/p>\n
1.\t Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution of India to the maintainability of the
\nwrit petition;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether the appellant is disentitled to relief on applicability of the doctrine
\nof estoppel, abandonment and waiver;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhether the decision of the Government of India rejecting the
\nrepresentation deserves to be quashed and declaration granted that the
\narticles are private property of the appellant or the issue either deserves to
\nbe remitted to Government of India for reconsideration or referred for
\nadjudication to an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.
\nQuestion No.1: Bar of Article 363 of the Constitution:
\n\tThe contention urged on behalf of the respondents is that the issue whether
\nthe articles are private or State property arises out of document of accession
\nentered into by Late Maharaja Hari Singh with the Government of the Dominion
\nof India and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the courts is barred.
\nArticle 363 of the Constitution which bars interference by courts in disputes
\narising out of certain treaties, agreements etc. reads as under:-
\n“(1)  Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution but
\nsubject to the provisions of article 143, neither the
\nSupreme Court nor any other court shall have
\njurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision
\nof a treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad
\nor other similar instrument which was entered into or
\nexecuted before the commencement of this
\nConstitution by any Ruler of an Indian State and to
\nwhich the Government of the Dominion of India or
\nany of its predecessor Governments was a party and
\nwhich has or has been continued in operation after
\nsuch commencement, or in any dispute in respect of
\nany right accruing under or any liability or obligation
\narising out of any of the provisions of this Constitution
\nrelating to any such treaty, agreement, covenant,
\nengagement, sanad or other similar instrument.
\n(2)  In this article\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t“Indian State” means any territory recognized
\nbefore the commencement of this Constitution by his
\nMajesty or the Government of the Dominion of India
\nas being such a State; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t“Ruler” includes the Prince, Chief or other
\nperson recognized before such commencement by His
\nMajesty or the Government of the Dominion of India
\nas the Ruler of any Indian State.”\n<\/p>\n
\tInterpreting  the aforesaid Article in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao
\nJivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v. Union of India & Anr.  [(1971) 1
\nSCC 85],  this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“…..But the Constituent Assembly did not want to
\nopen up the Pandora’s  box.  With Article 363, Article
\n362 would have opened the floodgates of litigation.
\nThe Constituent Assembly evidently wanted to avoid
\nthat situation.  That appears to have been the main
\nreason for enacting Article 363….. Some of the Rulers
\nwho had entered into Merger Agreements were
\nchallenging the validity of those agreements, even
\nbefore the draft of the Constitution was finalized.
\nSome of them were contending that the agreements
\nwere taken from them by intimidation; some others
\nwere contending that there were blanks in the
\nagreements signed by them and those blanks had been
\nfilled in without their knowledge and to their
\nprejudice.  The merger process went on hurriedly.  The
\nConstitution-makers could not have ignored the
\npossibility of future challenge to the validity of the
\nMerger Agreements.  Naturally they would have been
\nanxious to avoid challenge to various provisions in the
\nConstitution which are directly linked with the Merger
\nAgreements.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further observed:\n<\/p>\n
“That is why Article 363 really embodied the
\nprinciples of Acts of State which regulated and guided
\nthe rights and obligations under the covenants or
\nMerger Agreements by incorporating the doctrine of
\nunenforceability  of covenants or Merger Agreements
\ncoming into existence as Acts of State.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar v. Union of India &
\nAnr.<\/a> [(1979) 1 SCC 512], this Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
“Another contention raised by Mr. Sharma was that
\neven if the letter dated September 14, 1949 was held to
\nevidence an agreement, it was not hit by the provisions
\nof Article 363 of the Constitution inasmuch as it was
\nan agreement resulting from the Rajasthan Covenant
\nwhich alone, according to him, was the agreement
\ncovered by the article.  This contention is also without
\nsubstance.  Article 363 of the Constitution bars the
\njurisdiction of all courts in any disputes arising out of
\nany agreement which was entered into or executed
\nbefore the commencement of the Constitution by any
\nruler of an Indian State to which the Government of
\nIndia was a party.  The operation of the article is not
\nlimited to any “Parent” covenant and every agreement
\nwhether it is primary or one entered into in pursuance
\nof the provisions of a preceding agreement would fall
\nwithin the ambit of the article.  Thus the fact that the
\nagreement contained in the letter dated September 14,
\n1949 had resulted from action taken under the
\nprovisions of the Rajasthan Covenant, is no answer to
\nthe plea raised on behalf of the respondents that Article
\n363 of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability
\nof the two suits, although we may add, that the
\nagreement did not flow directly from the Rajasthan
\nCovenant but was entered into by ignoring and
\ndeparting from the provisions of clause (2) of Article
\nXII  thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAgain in Union of India v. Prince Muffakam Jah & Ors.<\/a>(II) [1995 Supp.
\n(1)  SCC 702],  while giving reasons for rejection of intervention application that
\nhad been filed by the interveners claiming to be public-spirited citizens  and
\nurging that there was a clear conceptual division between the Nizam’s personal
\nand private property and the State property, it was held:
\n“Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of all the courts in
\nany dispute arising out of any provision of a treaty,
\nagreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other
\nsimilar instrument which was entered into or executed
\nbefore the commencement of this Constitution by any
\nRuler of an Indian State.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this stage it would be apposite to notice the decision of this Court in
\nKunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [(1970) 2 SCR 631],
\nwhere while considering the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that by
\nthe executive order private properties were handed over to the Ruler, reproducing
\nthe concerned notification of Government of India, this Court held that :
\n“It is apparent that there is no notification by virtue of
\nwhich the Ruler became entitled to private properties.
\nThe notification which recognized the Ruler did not
\nstate that the Ruler thereby became entitled to private
\nproperties of the late Ruler.  Mr. Attorney-General
\nappearing for Union also made it clear that no right to
\nproperty flowed from the Government Order of
\nrecognition of Rulership.  It is manifest that the right to
\nprivate properties of the last Ruler depends upon the
\npersonal law of succession to the said private
\nproperties.  The recognition of the Ruler is a right to
\nsucceed to the  gaddi of the Ruler.  This recognition of
\nRulership by the President is an exercise of political
\npower vested in the President and is thus an instance of
\npurely executive jurisdiction of the President.  The act
\nof recognition of Rulership is not, as far as the
\nPresident  is concerned, associated with any act of
\nrecognition of right to private properties.  In order to
\nestablish that there has been an infringement of rights
\nto property or proprietary rights, the petitioner has to
\nestablish that the petitioner owns or has a right to
\nproperty which has been infringed by the impugned
\nact.  In the present case, the petitioner cannot be heard
\nto say that the petitioner possesses any private property
\nwhich has been invaded.  The petitioner’s contention
\nfails for two reasons.  First, the recognition of
\nRulership by the President does not, as far as the
\nPresident is concerned, touch any of the private
\nproperties claimed.  Secondly, the petitioner does not
\npossess any private property which has been effected
\nby the act of recognition of Rulership.  It must be
\nstated here that as far as the right to privy purse of a
\nRuler is concerned, Article 291 of the Constitution
\nenacts that payment of any sum which has been
\nguaranteed to any Ruler of a State as a privy purse
\nshall be charged on and paid out of the consolidated
\nfund of India.  The privy purse is not an item of private
\nproperty to which the Ruler succeeds.  Counsel for the
\npetitioner also realized the effect of Article 291 and
\ndid not press the contention of privy purse being a
\nprivate property.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, it is evident that any right arising out of or relating to a treaty
\ncovenant, agreement etc. as mentioned in Article 363, is barred to be determined
\nby any court.  The correspondence exchanged between Maharaja Hari Singh and
\nthe Government of India would amount to ‘agreement’ within the meaning of
\nArticle 363.  In case, the conclusion reached is that the same also covers the
\narticles in question, the bar of Article 363 would clearly be attracted.  But if this
\nCourt comes to the conclusion that these articles are not covered by the said
\ncorrespondence, Article 363 would be inapplicable.  According to the appellant,
\nthere is no document whereunder the question as to these articles came to be
\nconsidered by the Government.  According to the Government, the
\ncorrespondence of 1949 and letter dated 24th December, 1952 decides the aspect of
\nprivate properties.  This factual aspect has been considered while examining other
\nquestions.\n<\/p>\n
Question No.2 : Re: Applicability of doctrine of estoppel, waiver or
\nabandonment<\/p>\n
\tThe Division Bench in the impugned judgment, as earlier noticed, has held
\nthat ‘either there was relinquishment of right or waiver voluntarily’.  Before we
\nexamine the facts to decide this issue, reference may be made to certain decisions
\non the aspect of estoppel, abandonment and waiver.  The leading case on estoppel
\nis that of Pickard v. Sears [6 AD & E469] wherein Lord Denman, C.J. in
\ndelivering judgment, inter alia, said :\n<\/p>\n
“His title having been once established, the property
\ncould only be divested by gift or sale; of which no
\nspecific act was even surmised.  But the rule of law is
\nclear that where one by his words or conduct willfully
\ncauses another to believe the existence of a certain
\nstate of things, and induces him to act on that belief so
\nas to alter his own previous position, the former is
\nconcluded from averring against the latter a different
\nstate of things as existing at the same time;….” (See :
\nBigelow on Estoppel, pp.606, 607)<\/p>\n
\tIn Mitra Sen Singh & Ors. v. Mt. Janki Kuar & Ors. [AIR 1924 PC 213 at
\n214], with regard to estoppel, it was stated :\n<\/p>\n
“There is no peculiarity in the law of India as
\ndistinguished from that of England which would
\njustify such an application.  The law of India is
\ncompendiously set forth in S.115 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act, Act 1 of 1872.  It will save a long
\nstatement by simply stating that section, which is as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
‘When one person has, by his declaration, act or
\nomission, intentionally caused or permitted
\nanother person to believe a thing to be true and
\nto act upon such belief, neither he nor his
\nrepresentative shall be allowed, in any suit or
\nproceeding between himself and such person or
\nhis representative to deny the truth of that
\nthing’.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dhiyan Singh & Anr. v. Jugal Kishore & Anr.<\/a> [1952 SCR 478] this
\nCourt stated :\n<\/p>\n
“Now it can be conceded that the before an estoppel
\ncan arise, there must be first a representation of an
\nexisting fact as distinct from a mere promise de futuro
\nmade by one party to the other; second that the other
\nparty, believing it, must have been induced to act on
\nthe faith of it; and third, that he must have so acted to
\nhis detriment.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Gyarsi Bai & Ors. v. Dhansukh Lal & Ors.<\/a> [(1965) 2 SCR 154], the
\nprinciples were reiterated in the following words:
\n“To invoke the doctrine of estoppel three conditions
\nmust be satisfied : (1) representation by a person to
\nanother, (2) the other shall have acted upon the said
\nrepresentation, and (3) such action shall have been
\ndetrimental to the interests of the person to whom the
\nrepresentation has been made.”\n<\/p>\n
Abandonment<\/p>\n
\tIn Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Jawahar Mills Ltd.
\n[(1953) SCR 351], this Court stated :\n<\/p>\n
“Two things are thus clear, namely, (1) that
\nabandonment of right is much more than mere waiver,
\nacquiescence or laches and is something akin to
\nestoppel if not estoppel itself, and (2) that mere waiver,
\nacquiescence or laches which is short of abandonment
\nof right or estoppel does not disentitle the holder of
\nshares who has a vested interest in the shares from
\nchallenging the validity of the purported forfeiture of
\nthose shares.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the same decision the Supreme Court also made it clear that <\/p>\n
“A man who has a vested interest and in whom the
\nlegal title lies does not, and cannot, lose that title by
\nmere laches, or mere standing by or even by saying
\nthat he has abandoned his right, unless there is
\nsomething more, namely inducing another party by his
\nwords of conduct to believe the truth of that statement
\nand to act upon it to his detriment, that is to say, unless
\nthere is an estoppel, pure and simple. It is only in such
\na case that the right can by lost by what is loosely
\ncalled abandonment or waiver, but even then it is not
\nthe abandonment or waiver as such which deprives
\nhim of his title but the estoppel which prevents him
\nfrom asserting that his interest in the shares has not
\nbeen legally extinguished, that is to say, which
\nprevents him from asserting that the legal forms which
\nin law bring about the extinguishment of his interest
\nand pass the title which resides in him to another, were
\nnot duly observed.”\n<\/p>\n
Waiver<\/p>\n
\tIn Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr.Hakimwadi Tenants’
\nAssociation & Ors.<\/a> [1988 Supp. SCC 55], it was held
\n“In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary
\nand intentional relinquishment of a right. The essence
\nof a waiver is an estoppel and where there is no
\nestoppel, there is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver are
\nquestions of conduct and must necessarily be
\ndetermined the facts of each case.”\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of the present case, the principles laid down in Provash
\nChandra Dalui & Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee & Anr.<\/a> [1989 Supp.(1) SCC 487]
\nare quite apt.  One of the questions that came up for consideration in the said
\ndecision was whether there was estoppel, waiver, acquiescence or res judicata on
\nthe part of the respondents as in earlier proceedings they treated the appellants as
\nthika tenants before the Controller.  It was held that the essential element of
\nwaiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known
\nright or such conduct as warrants the inference of the relinquishment of such right.
\nIt means forsaking the assertion of a right to the proper opportunity.  It was held
\nthat voluntary choice is the essence of waiver for which there must have existed an
\nopportunity for a choice between the relinquishment and the conferment of the
\nright in question.\n<\/p>\n
On the touchstone of aforesaid principles, we have to examine facts of the
\ncase in hand to decide whether the right was forsaken.  We have to decide whether
\nthere existed an opportunity to Maharaja Hari Singh and\/or the appellant to assert
\nthe right but it was not asserted at the appropriate time when there was a proper
\nopportunity.  According to the appellant, the proper opportunity arose only in the
\nyear 1983 when the newspapers reports appeared showing the intention of the
\nState Government to sell these articles.  The appellant did not forsake the assertion
\nof his right at that time.  In fact, he immediately asserted his right by filing a
\nrepresentation and without even awaiting the decision of the representation by the
\nGovernment, he filed the writ petition before the High Court.  In our view,
\nhowever, it is over simplification of the facts and background of the case.  The
\nclaim of the appellant loses sight of the following facts :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe correspondence exchanged between the Government of India and
\nMaharaja Hari Singh shows that articles in question were not claimed by
\nthe ex-ruler to be his private property.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tMaharaha Hari Singh, in his lifetime, did not claim the articles in question
\nto be his personal properties.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe appellant was recognized as the successor to Maharaja Hari Singh on
\nhis demise in the year 1961.  No claim was made till representation dated
\n2nd December, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSection 5(1)(ivx) of the Wealth Tax Act provides for exemption from
\nwealth tax in respect of jewellery and other heirlooms in possession of the
\nruler.  The exemption was available only where\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe ruler’s jewellery had been recognized by the Central Government
\nas his heirloom before the commencement of the Wealth Tax Act; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe Central Board of Direct Taxes recognized the ruler’s jewellery
\nas his heirloom at the time of his first assessment to wealth tax under
\nthe Wealth Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe appellant did not make any application to the Central Board of
\nDirect Taxes to obtain such recognition nor Central Government had
\nrecognized the said articles as heirlooms of the appellant, as required for the
\npurpose of exemption from wealth tax.  The appellant filed an application
\nclaiming exemption under Section 5(1)(ivx) of the Wealth Tax Act in
\nrespect of the articles in question only on 7th February, 1985, after filing of
\nthe writ petition in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe appellant in his biography entitled “Heir Apparent” has made a
\nstatement to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
“Again unlike most of other Rulers, my father made a
\nclear distinction between his private property,
\nincluding jewellery and State property.  He left family
\njewellery, shawls, carpets and Regalia worth crores
\nwith the State Toshakhana (Treasury) which most
\nothers in his place would have appropriated without
\nturning a hair.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn respect of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the appellant,
\nreferring to Sections 17 and 31 of the Indian Evidence Act and certain decisions,
\ncontends that there is no admission abandoning the articles in favour of the State
\nGovernment and also that it is open to the appellant to explain the circumstances
\nunder which the same were made.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance has been placed on Shri Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai.<\/a> [1959
\nSupp.(1) SCR 698] where dealing with admissions, this Court stated thus :
\n“And admissions are not conclusive, and unless they
\nconstitute estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that
\nthey were mistaken or were untrue : Trinidad Asphalt
\nCompany v. Coryat [(1896) A.C. 587]. Admissions are
\nmere pieces of evidence and if the truth of the matter is
\nknown to both parties the principle stated in Chandra
\nKunwar’s case [(1906) 34 I.A. 27] would be
\ninapplicable.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAgain in Bharat Singh & Anr. v. Bhagirathi<\/a> [(1966) 1 SCR 606], on
\nwhich reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court held :
\n“Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used
\nagainst the person making them.  Admissions are
\nsubjective evidence by themselves, in view of Sections
\n17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are
\nnot conclusive proof of the matters admitted.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther reliance was placed on Chikkam Koreswara Rao v. Chikkam
\nSubba Rao & Ors.<\/a> [(1970) 1 SCC 558] for the observations to the following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
“Before the right of a party can be considered to have
\nbeen defeated on the basis of an alleged admission by
\nhim, the implication of the statement made by him
\nmust be clear and conclusive.   There should be no
\ndoubt or ambiguity about the alleged admissions.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, the reliance on aforesaid decisions is as misplaced as
\nthe argument itself.  It has to be borne in mind that the statements made in the
\nbook are not being taken into consideration as conclusive admissions as such but
\nhave been taken as additional circumstance along with other circumstances that
\nhave already been noticed, for determining whether the conduct of the appellant
\namounts to waiver and\/or abandonment of right in respect of the articles in
\nquestion.  The appellant has not been declined relief only on account of the
\nstatements made by him in the autobiography.  It may also be noticed that the
\nmaterial on record further shows that the appellant has been taking from State
\nGovernment on temporary loan certain items from Toshakhana by moving
\napplications from time to time for the said purpose.   This conduct of the appellant
\nis also a relevant circumstance.  It is evident that the appellant came out of
\nslumber only in the year 1983 and took a chance in respect of the articles in
\nquestion.  Though on the aforesaid facts, the doctrine of estoppel may not be
\napplicable against the appellant for want of three conditions as laid down in
\nGyarsi Bai (supra) but the same cannot be said about abandonment and waiver.  It
\nis not a mere case of latches and standing by the appellant.  Firstly  the father of
\nthe appellant never claimed the articles to be his private property.  After his death
\nfor twenty years the appellant did not take any action.  On the other hand he was
\noccasionally taking articles on loan from Toshakhana.  The appellant failed to
\nassert his right at proper opportunity.  Having regard to these facts, the conclusion
\nof the Division Bench that the appellant has waived and\/or abandoned his right in
\nrespect of the articles in question cannot be faulted.
\nQuestion No.3: \tWhether the decision of the Government of India
\nrejecting the representation deserves to be quashed and
\ndeclaration granted that the articles are private property
\nof the appellant or the issue either deserves to be remitted
\nto Government of India for reconsideration or referred
\nfor adjudication to an arbitrator to be appointed by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe relevant part of order dated 24th September, 1984 passed by the
\nGovernment of India rejecting appellant’s representation reads as under:
\n“2.\tThe relevant facts appear to be that in response
\nto Government of India’s letter of 18.5.1949, the then
\nMaharaja of Kashmir in his letter dated 1.6.1949
\naddressed to late Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then
\nMinister of Home Affairs and States, had sent a list of
\nhis private properties.  There is no mention of
\njewellery or regalia in question in the said list.  The
\naforesaid list of private properties given by the then
\nMaharaja of Kashmir was accepted by the Government
\nof India and the acceptance was duly communicated
\nby letter dated 9th June, 1948 by late Sardar Patel.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLater, Shri C.S.Venkatachar, the then Secretary,
\nMinistry of States, in his letter dated December 24,
\n1952 addressed to Maharaja Hari Singh, referred to
\nSardar Patel’s aforesaid letter of June 9, 1949 and
\nreiterated that the properties mentioned in the Schedule
\nto Maharaja’s letter were the private properties of the
\nMaharaja and would continue to be his private
\nproperties.  There is no mention of jewellery or regalia
\nin question in the said Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn 18th August, 1958, a Notification was issued
\nby the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
\nwith regard to exemption of heirloom jewellery from
\nwealth tax.  According to this Notification, the then
\nrulers were required to obtain recognition of jewellery
\nas their heirloom, if any, for purposes of exemption
\nfrom the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.  The declaration was
\ngiven in 26 cases by the then Rulers and the jewellery
\nwas exempted from wealth tax subject to certain
\nconditions laid down in the Wealth Tax (Exemption of
\nHeirloom Jewellery of Rules) Rules, 1958.  The Ruler
\nof Jammu and Kashmir, however, does not appear to
\nhave made any application under Rule 3 of these Rules
\nfor recognition of jewellery in question as heirloom.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tConsequent upon the enforcement of the
\nConstitution  (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971
\nwith effect from 28th December, 1971, the rulership
\nwas abolished.  The question of the jewellery etc.
\nbeing required for ceremonial purposes thereafter
\ncannot arise.  Para 8 of Shri C.S. Venkatachar’s letter
\ndated December 24, 1952 reproduced in your letter
\ndoes not relate to the jewellery in question and is of no
\nrelevance now.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe agreements with regard to the private
\nproperties of the Rulers, once arrived at, are final.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIt may incidentally be pointed out that in your
\nautobiography entitled ‘Heir Apparent’ and statements
\nto the Press, you have acknowledged that the treasure
\nlying in the Toshakhana  had  been given to the State.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tTaking all aspects into consideration, the
\nGovernment of India regret their inability to accept
\nyour claim to the jewelry and other items lying in
\nSrinagar Toshakhana.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs already noticed there has never been any declaration that the articles in
\nquestion are private properties of the appellant or his father.  The correspondence
\nbetween Maharaja Hari Singh and the Government does not declare these articles
\nas private property of Maharaja though some other properties were so declared.
\nAssuming there is some substance in the claim of the appellant which requires
\nconsideration, then it will depend upon examination of various disputed question
\nof facts.  Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated except on taking of
\nevidence.  In Dharam Dutt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [2003 (10) SCALE
\n141], a case of taking over of Sapru House by promulgation of ordinance followed
\nby the Act, the contention of the writ petitioners was that the building, the library
\nand all other movables in the Sapru House are owned by the Society and take over
\nby the Government has deprived the Society of its property without any authority
\nof law.  This Court noticing that Union of India do not admit title of the petitioner
\nand also noticing that there is not one document of title produced by the
\npetitioners, held that such highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be
\ndetermined except on evidence are not fit to be taken up for adjudication in the
\nexercise of writ jurisdiction.  We see no illegality in the decision of the
\nGovernment that was approached by the appellant himself.  Therefore, it is not
\npossible to quash the order dated 24th September, 1984 and direct reconsideration
\nof the issue by the Government.  Realising difficulties in grant of relief in respect
\nof declaration of articles to be private property of the appellant, Mr. Kapil Sibal
\ndid not seriously press it but at the same time strenuously contended that it was
\namply fit case where the issue deserves to be referred for adjudication to the
\narbitration of an independent arbitrator.  In support, reference has been made by
\nlearned counsel to the report of the inspection team constituted by this Court as
\nnoticed hereinbefore.  The contention urged is that the said report at least prima
\nfacie shows that these articles are private property of the appellant and, therefore,
\nan independent adjudication is called for.  The inspection team was constituted
\nand inspection ordered as interim measure when the writ petition was pending
\nbefore the High Court.  The report only gives a tentative opinion.  It says that the
\nmatter may have to be decided on taking evidence.  The prima facie opinion
\nexpressed in the report is not a ground to refer the issue to arbitration for
\nadjudication in the absence of any agreement requiring reference to arbitration.
\nFurther there is no such claim in the writ petition.  Assuming that in an appropriate
\ncase relief may be moulded by this Court and matter referred for adjudication to
\narbitration in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
\nConstitution of India, we see no ground, on the facts of the present case, to
\nexercise such power.  The decision in respect of private property taken long time
\nback cannot be permitted to be reopened without any exceptional grounds which
\nare none in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no interference is called
\nfor in the impugned judgment of the High Court.  The appeals are accordingly
\ndismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 Author: Y.K.Sabharwal Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5943-5945 of 1997 PETITIONER: Dr. Karan Singh RESPONDENT: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/2004 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & Dr.AR.Lakshmanan. JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5929,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004"},"wordCount":5929,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004","name":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T02:01:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-karan-singh-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-anr-on-13-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Karan Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 13 April, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}