<P> The policy is most commonly associated with Lord Dalhousie, who was the Governor General for the East India Company in India between 1848 and 1856 . However, it was articulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as early as 1834 and several smaller states were already annexed under this doctrine before Dalhousie took over the post of Governor - General . Dalhousie used the policy most vigorously and extensively, though, so it is generally associated with him . </P> <P> At the time of its adoption, the British East India Company had imperial administrative jurisdiction over wide regions of the subcontinent . The company took over the princely states of Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Nagpur and Jhansi (1854), Tanjore and Arcot (1855) and Udaipur (Chhattisgarh) under the terms of the doctrine of lapse . Oudh (1856) is widely believed to have been annexed under the Doctrine of Lapse . However it was annexed by Lord Dalhousie under the pretext of mis - governance . Mostly claiming that the ruler was not ruling properly, the Company added about four million pounds sterling to its annual revenue by virtue of this doctrine . Udaipur State, however, would have local rule reinstated by the British in 1860 . </P> <P> With the increasing power of the East India Company, discontent simmered among many sections of Indian society and the largely indigenous armed forces; these rallied behind the deposed dynasties during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, also known as the Sepoy Mutiny . Following the rebellion, in 1858, the new British Viceroy of India, whose rule replaced that of the British East India Company, renounced the doctrine . </P> <P> The princely state of Kittur was taken over by the East India Company in 1824 by imposing a' doctrine of lapse' . So it is debatable whether it was devised by Lord Dalhousie in 1848, though he arguably made it official by documenting it . Dalhousie's annexations and the doctrine of lapse had caused suspicion and uneasiness among most ruling princes in India . </P>

Doctrine of lapse was of the cause for which rebellion