MP High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Recognising Saif Ali Khan, His Siblings & Mother As Heirs Of Nawab Of Bhopal’s Properties
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Court docket remanded a dispute in regards to the personal properties of the erstwhile ruler of the then state of Bhopal–the Late Nawab Mohd Hamidullah Khan, to the Trial Court docket for contemporary resolution, after noting that the trial courtroom had relied on a judgment which had been subsequently overruled.
In doing so the courtroom put aside the trial courtroom’s February 14, 2000 judgment which had determined towards the appellants who had filed lawsuits initially in 1971- which was renumbered in 1999-seeking partition, possession and settlement of the property of the late Nawab of Bhopal. The excessive courtroom additional directed the trial courtroom to determine the matter expeditiously, because the fits had been initially filed 1999.
Notably, Actor Saif Ali Khan had inherited the Bhopal properties from his father’s mom, Sajida Begum. The trial courtroom had upheld the unique proper of Begum’s heirs over the ancestral properties of the Nawab of Bhopal.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in his order stated,“…for the reason that trial Court docket with out contemplating the opposite facets of the matter had dismissed the fits, that too relying upon the judgment which has already been overruled by the Supreme Court docket, the issues should be remanded again to the trial Court docket for deciding it afresh as a result of these are the fits for partition and if finally, the trial Court docket involves the conclusion that fits must be allowed then share of the events may be decided solely by the trial Court docket whereas passing the preliminary decree and that may be additional finalized by the trial Court docket itself after finishing up the required formalities of partition”.
Background of dispute
The courtroom was listening to two appeals filed the family of the late Nawab–together with one filed by Begum Suraiya Rashid (since deceased represented via her authorized representatives) who’s acknowledged to be spouse of the son born to the late Nawab’s elder brother, her daughters Mahabano (since deceased represented via authorized representatives) and Niloufar in addition to sons Nadir and Yawar ( each deceased represented via authorized representatives)
One of many appellants within the second attraction consists of Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan who’s acknowledged to be the later Nawab’s daughter. The appellants (plaintiffs earlier than trial courtroom) had filed fits for partition of the swimsuit property, possession and settling the account of property left by the late Nawab.
The respondents within the attraction embody Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan who can also be a daughter of the late Nawab. Sajida Sultan who’s since deceased is represented via her authorized heirs i.e. the Mansoor Ali Khan the late Nawab of Pataudi, who’s therein represented via his spouse actress Sharmila Tagore, his son actor Saif Ali Khan, and daughters Saba Sultan and actress Soha Ali Khan.
The appellants and respondents are acknowledged to be the authorized heirs of the late Nawab of Bhopal.
Case earlier than Excessive Court docket
The courtroom was listening to the appellants’ plea towards the trial courtroom order which had rejected the appellants’ swimsuit for partition, possession and settlement of the property of late Nawab. The trial courtroom had dominated that whereas the appellants’ lawsuits had been maintainable, had been lawfully filed and the civil courtroom had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Nonetheless the trial courtroom had held that personal properties of the late Nawab wouldn’t be ruled by Muslim Private Regulation of Succession.
Appellants argued that Mohd. Hamidullah Khan was the Nawab of Bhopal riyasat and died on February 4, 1960 and claimed that the swimsuit property was his “private property”.
Following a merger of Bhopal into the Union of India on April 30, 1949, an settlement was executed with the next phrases:
Clause II acknowledged that the Nawab would retain his “particular rights” after the merger
Clause V acknowledged that every one the property which is their private property, shall be of their absolute possession and succession of the Gaddi (throne) shall be below the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, 1947
After the Nawab’s loss of life in 1960, following Clause VI of the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, Sajida Sultan was declared the Ruler. Additional the Authorities of India who can also be a defendant earlier than the trial courtroom–in its January 10, 1962 letter acknowledged that below Article 366(22) of Structure of India the Nawab’s private property could be Sajida Sultan’s private property.
The appellants argued earlier than the trial courtroom that GOI’s order isn’t lawful, asserting that upon the loss of life of the Nawab his private property ought to have been divided amongst his heirs below Muslim Private Regulation, and Sajida Sultan couldn’t be the only real proprietor. The appellants thus sought partition from the respondents-defendants and filed the swimsuit for partition, possession and settling the account of property.
The respondents of their response earlier than the trial courtroom claimed that the succession below the 1947 Throne Act adopted the primogeniture rule–which may be understood as the proper of the first-born youngster to inherit their guardian’s property/property. It was argued that the successor of the throne was once absolutely the successor of the non-public property of the Nawab (ruler).
In keeping with the defendants, the swimsuit property belongs to Nawab (Ruler) which is his private property and it can’t be partitioned in keeping with Muslim Private Regulation.
It was additionally argued that her possession proper was additionally declared by the Authorities of India via a certificates issued in 1962.
The respondents argued that the Civil Court docket lacked jurisdiction for the reason that plaintiff didn’t search to declare the 1962 certificates as unlawful; thus, the swimsuit must be dismissed below Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Counting on Article 366(2) of the Structure, the respondents argued that the non-public property of the Nawab was additionally a part of the signed settlement and thus would go to the Ruler, i.e., Sajida Sultan Begum.
Showing for the appellants advocate Aadil Singh Boparai, argued that the trial courtroom erred in treating the Nawab’s personal properties as inseparable from the throne, thereby passing them solely to the successor of the throne.
Boparai argued that whereas one individual might succeed to the Gaddi (throne) nonetheless a number of heirs might succeed to the personal properties of the erstwhile Nawab (ruler) as per the Private Regulation of Succession.
In the meantime the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate S. Sreevastava, argued that the state of Bhopal’s merger with India was ruled by a novel settlement that laid down particular phrases relating to the administration of Nawab’s private properties and the style wherein rights over such properties might be asserted.
He identified that within the Bhopal Merger Settlement, the Authorities of India has made a clause and agreed that the rights and privileges of the Nawab shall be continued to his successor and in keeping with him successor doesn’t characterize the successor as per the non-public rights however the successor represents the subsequent ruler.
Senior advocate Sanjay Agrawal additionally showing for the respondents argued that as per the settlement executed between the Authorities of India and the-then ruler of State of Bhopal Nawab Hamidullah Khan, after his loss of life, a notification was issued by the Authorities of India as per the provisions of Article 226 Clause 22 and appointed Sajida Sultan as subsequent ruler of Bhopal and Sajida Sultan died on 05.09.1995. He stated that these phrases can’t be exchanged in view of Article 366 of the Structure of India.
He submitted that the declare is raised by the appellants claiming proper over the property of Sajida Sultan doesn’t lie, as a result of on the related level of time the non-public legislation had no software and it had come into pressure solely after the loss of life of Nawab Sajida Sultan and even in any other case the successors of Sajida Sultan can declare the proper over the property of Nawab of Bhopal and no person else.
Findings
The excessive courtroom opined that the trial courtroom had dismissed the fits whereas counting on an 1997 Allahabad Excessive Court docket judgment Miss Talat Fatima Hasan Vs. His Highness Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur and others, which pertains to a property dispute between the heirs of the erstwhile Nawab of the State of Rampur Raza Ali Khan.
Nonetheless the excessive courtroom stated that the trial courtroom had failed to contemplate that the ruling had been overruled by the Supreme Court docket in 2019 in Talat Fatima Hasan via Her Constituted Legal professional Syed Mehdi Husain Vs. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Useless) by authorized representatives and Others.
Notably the Supreme Court docket dominated that the events therein shall be entitled to succeed to the properties of late Nawab Raza Ali Khan “as per private legislation”.
The excessive courtroom thereafter stated,“Within the current information and circumstances when the authorized subject on which trial Court docket was relying upon has been reversed and the fits in query are of partition, subsequently, in view of the supply of Order 14 Rule 23A of the CPC…I’m of the opinion that these instances may be remanded again to the trial”.
For context Rule 23A (remand in different instances) states that the place the Court docket from whose decree an attraction is most well-liked has disposed of the case in any other case than on a preliminary level, and the decree is reversed in attraction and a re-trial is taken into account vital, the Appellate Court docket shall have the identical powers because it has below Rule 23.
The Excessive Court docket famous that the trial courtroom adjudicated on the matter after counting on the judgment that had been overturned by the Supreme Court docket.
The bench emphasised, “The issues are remanded again to the trial Court docket for deciding it afresh and in that case required, the trial Court docket can enable the events to guide additional proof in view of the following growth and adjusted authorized place. It’s made clear that for the reason that fits had been initially filed within the 12 months 1999, subsequently, the trial Court docket shall make all attainable efforts to conclude and determine it expeditiously, ideally inside a interval of 1 12 months”.
Thus, the courtroom allowed the appeals and put aside the judgment and decree of the trial courtroom.
