Can the courts interfere in the property disputes of Raj families? Supreme Court will be investigated - Royal property disputes and Section 363 Supreme Court investigations

Can the courts interfere in the property disputes of Raj families? The Supreme Court will investigate the Supreme Court or Article 363 of the Constitution preventing the courts from hearing the property disputes of former royal homes. The case is related to the petition submitted by the members of the royal family of Jaipur, which has a dispute over the imprisonment and other properties. The requesters disputed the ruling of the Rajasthan High Court. Disputes related to the properties of the royal houses of the country were heard in the Supreme Court. (Lying Photo) Pti, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to conduct an investigation whether Article 363 of the Constitution prevented the trial of disputes related to the properties of the country’s royal homes, which are mentioned under the preliminary treaties. Article 363 prohibits the intervention of courts in disputes arising from some treaties, agreements, treaties, contracts, contracts, etc., laid out between a monarchy family and the government of India. A Bank of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Avstin George Christ issued a notice about a petition submitted by members of the royal family of Jaipur, including Rajmata Padmini Devi, Deputy Head Minister Dia Kumari and Sawai Padmanabh Singh. What is the matter? This petition deals with the capture of the town hall (old legislative assembly) and other properties in Jaipur. He disputed the ruling of the Rajasthan High Court, saying that the case filed for the occupation of the town hall, which is mentioned in the treaty between the former Raj families and the Union of India, cannot be accepted by the civil courts under Article 363 of the Constitution. Senior lawyer Harish Salve, who appeared on behalf of the royal family members, argued that the disputed treaty was signed by five kings, while the Government of India was only a sponsor to ensure that the conditions met. This aspect was not included in the Supreme Court proceedings, which led to a controversial decision of April 17. Justice Mishra asked Salve how the Indian government was not a party, how was the merger with the Union of India. Salve made it clear that this merger took place after the treaty when the Constitution’s article came into effect. Justice Mishra said that according to Salve’s arguments, if the Union of India was not the side of the Treaty and therefore did not apply Article 363, the situation would enable every other ruler to file a case and claim his property. Falling a lawsuit and having authority over property are two different things. Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, who appeared on behalf of the Rajasthan government, said the government would not promote this issue in light of the length of the case. Also read: ‘You are going to the Supreme Court’, the Supreme Court refuses to consider a Asking Association in Assam; Know what to say?