Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

A Startling & Hidden Aspect of Faridkot Royal Estates Case: Documentary Evidence

As an author of Historical Account of Faridkot State, I am closely following the Faridkot Royal Estates Case. Actually the case about the properties of Maharaja of Faridkot State was between the eldest daughter of Maharaja ( Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the Plaintiff) and the other daughter ( Maharani Deepinder Kaur, the Defendant). One daughter (the Plaintiff) initially was for having the entire property, then for a share in properties of her father and the other daughter (the Defendant, Chair-person of Maharawal Khewaji Trust) was for keeping the properties intact to preserve as heritage for the future generations as per the Will of her father. The Judgement dated 25.7.2013 was in favour of the Plaintiff (seeking division of the properties) and against the Defendant (seeking the properties as per the Will) But it was reported in the media with a major slant that the two daughters got the Royal Bonanza of Rs. 20,000 crores after 21 years and the like. It is highly motivated. The impression was given out as if both sisters were interested to have the share in the property. It is important to investigate as to who

prepared the Press Release, if any, and also the real forces behind this type of one-sided publicity. However on Appeal by the Trust, it was stayed by the District Court. There is a documentary evidence that there is a strong group in Ambala City (alleged as Land Mafia) seeking to grab the prime land involved in the whole case. Some people are being used just as pawns in the game. Amrit Kaur, the Petitioner against the Will, had entered into an agreement through General Power of Attorney signed by her on 14.2.1996.transferring the case for Rs65 lakh. As per the agreement, called "assignment deed", a group of nine persons from Ambala, represented by one Satpal Grover, had paid Rs65 lakh through four demand drafts to Amrit Kaur. When she was asked about this agreement in court by the defence lawyer, she said she had indeed entered into such an agreement, but the agreement did not stand. She said she had spent the money to pay lawyers in the case. So far this Document, though mentioned briefly in a section of the media, was not brought to the lime light it deserved. Pre-Judgement Sell-Out of the Case (i.e. Royal Properties) (Through General Power of Attorney)

As a matter of fact The General Power of Attorney was an assignment deed. 1. The Assignment Deed was executed between Amrit Harpal Singh (The 1st Party) and 1. Sh. Kuldeep Singh Lamba, 2. Sh. Gajinder Singh, 3.Sh. Harinderpal Singh, 4. Sh. Satnam Singh, 5. Sh. Anup Singh, 6. Sh.Gurpreet Singh, 7. Gurmeet Singh, 8. Mrs. Sancheta Singh W/O Gurpreet Singh, 9. Satpal Grover, through Sh. Satpal Grover as (The 2nd Party). 2. The Deed was about the Civil Suit No. 228 of 1992, titled as Rajkumari Amrit Kaur v/s Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others and both the Parties agreed to the following terms & conditions (which are the prominent features of the assignment): i) The 1st Party acknowledges the receipt of the aforesaid Demand Drafts and has issued separate receipt to this effect. This Assignment Deed is subject to the encashment of Demand Drafts in favour of the 1st Party and shall become effective

only after the realization of the amount of Demand Drafts. ii) The 2nd Party sought to acquire the rights, titles, interest, share, benefits and actionable claims in the properties situated in India only (will not have any right or claim over the properties outside India) and for this the 2md Party paid to the 1st Party nonrefundable money by means of Demand Draft as full & final payment
(1.DD.No. 110023692 dated, 02.01.1996 of BKME Safat, Kuwait, Rs. 50, 00, 000/ (Rs. Fifty Lacs), payable at the Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, in the name of Mrs. Amrit Kaur. 2. DD. No. 176635 & 176636, dt. 16.01.1996 and DD. No. 175544 13.02.1996, all of Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, (5,00,000-Five Lacs eachtotal 15,00,000-fifteen Lacs) payable at Allahabad Bank Chandigarh, in the name of Mrs. Am,rit Kaur.

(all were encashed by the 1st Party without any loss of time)

iii) The 2nd Party shall bear and incur all

expenditure exclusively for the process and conducting the said Civil Suit and any other litigation connected with or arising out of it. iv) The 2nd Party takes all responsibility to honour the Assignment. The 1st Party shall not incur any expenditure on any litigation aforesaid whatsoever after today anymore. v) The 2nd Party is signing the assignment deed on his own behalf and on behalf of his partners/associates mentioned above.

vi) In the event of succeeding to the properties by

way of court decision, compromise or arbitration, the said properties shall be got evaluated from the government approved valuer to be appointed with the consent of both the parties. The 2nd Party shall pay 20 % of the evaluated amount to The 1st Party. After the amount paid, the 2nd Party becomes absolute owner of the properties. If the 2nd Party does not pay or is unable to pay 20% in cash then the 1st Party shall have share to the extent of 20% of all the properties (in that event the share of the 2nd Party shall be to the extent of 80% only) vii) Subject to the above, the possession on the bases of AS IS WHERE IS deemed to have passed to the 2nd Party today. vii) The 1st Party have no objection if the 2nd Party got themselves recorded as assignee pf the 1st Party in the place of 1st Party in Civil Suit No. 228 or anyother litigation connected with Suit properties. However, the non-refundable money of Rs. 65,00,000/ (Rs. Sixty Five Lacs only) shall not be refunded under any circumstances whatsoever. viii) The 2nd Party has entered into this settlement at their own free will, cost and risk and shall persue the Court proceedings through the advocates already appointed by the 1st Party and to pay their legal fees and expenses due to them. If required the 2nd Party would engage any lawyer of their choice with the consent of the 1st Party and bear all the expenses to win the case.

ix) Both the Parties shall not enter into any

compromise, any settlement etc. directly or indirectly with the Defendants except by mutual consent. x) Both the Parties would execute a Power of Attorney strictly in accordance with the provisions of this Assignment Deed. In case there is any disagreement between the Parties on distribution of items of properties, the Parties would decide it by way of toss in the presence one each representatives of both the Parties and respectables. xi) The 2nd Party indemnifies the 1st Party against any litigation, Civil or Criminal which may arise out of this assignment. xii) It is clarified that after adjudication both the Parties shall appoint evaluater within 30 days and thereafter the 2nd Party shall pay the amount of 20% to the 1st Party within 60 days. However, in case the evaluation report is found unfeasible, the2nd Party shall handover the possession of 20% of the properties to the 1st Party within 30 days. xiii) Both the Parties shall abide by terms and conditions. xiv) I hereby undertake to confirm and ratify all acts and deeds and things lawfully done by the attorney in respect of the above reproduced Assignment Deed. This Power of Attorney is irrevocable. In witnesses whereof I have signed the Power of Attorney at Chandigarh on the 14th day of February 1996.

Signed by Amrit Harpal Singh Executant 1. From this Document everything becomes crystal clear that the Case of Faridkot Royal Estates was sold to a Group of Nine Persons of Ambala for just Rs. 65,00,000(Sixty Five Lacs) only. 2. It was a well planned case to grab the properties & to destroy the Historic Heritage of Faridkot State. What a tribute by the elder daughter (Amrit Kaur) to her Dear father (Maharaja Harinder Singh Brar)? 3. It was squandering away the Precious Heritage80% to the Group of Nine (having connection with Kuwait, as the Demand Draft for Rs. Fifty Lacs came from Kuwait Bank and 20% to the dear daughter. 4. Amrit Kaur had accepted its authenticity during her Cross-Examination. She also said that the matter is settled and the Documents stand cancelled. I had spent the said amount of Sixty Five Lacs by paying the same to the lawyers as their fees. She was directed to produce the PAN CARD which she never did. 5. How was it possible when the Assignment Deed was irrevocable and the entire expenditure was to be done by the 2nd Party as per Assignment Deed.

6. What is more surprising is the fact that there is not any observation by the Trial Court in its judgement dated 25.7.2013 though the Document was fairly discussed during the proceedings. By
Amarjit Singh Dhillon Dr. (from Canada)

Centres d'intérêt liés