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 High Court remanded a dispute concerning the private properties of the erstwhile ruler of the then state of Bhopal the Late Nawab Mohd Hamidullah Khan, to the Trial Court for fresh decision after noting that the trial court–which ruled in favour of the respondents including the Nawab's daughter, grandson actor Saif Ali Khan, his mother and siblings–had relied on a judgment which had been subsequently overruled.
In doing so the court set aside the trial court's February 14, 2000 judgment and further directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously, as the suits were initially filed 1999.
Notably, Actor Saif Ali Khan had inherited the Bhopal properties from his father's mother, Sajida Begum. The trial court had upheld the exclusive right of Begum's heirs over the ancestral properties of the Nawab of Bhopal.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in his order said, “…since the trial Court without considering the other aspects of the matter had dismissed the suits, that too relying upon the judgment which has already been overruled by the Supreme Court, the matters need to be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh because these are the suits for partition and if ultimately, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that suits have to be allowed then share of the parties can be determined only by the trial Court while passing the preliminary decree and that can be further finalized by the trial Court itself after carrying out the necessary formalities of partition”.
Background
The court was hearing two appeals filed by the relatives of the late Nawab–including one filed by Begum Suraiya Rashid (since deceased represented through her legal representatives) who is stated to be wife of the son born to the late Nawab's elder brother, her daughters Mahabano (since deceased represented through legal representatives) and Niloufar as well as sons Nadir and Yawar ( both deceased represented through legal representatives)
One of the appellants in the second appeal includes Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan who is stated to be the later Nawab's daughter. The appellants (plaintiffs before trial court) had filed suits for partition of the suit property, possession and settling the account of estate left by the late Nawab.
The respondents in the appeal include Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan who is also a daughter of the late Nawab. Sajida Sultan who is since deceased is represented through her legal heirs i.e. the Mansoor Ali Khan the late Nawab of Pataudi, who is therein represented through his wife actress Sharmila Tagore, his son actor Saif Ali Khan, and daughters Saba Sultan and actress Soha Ali Khan.
The appellants and respondents are stated to be the legal heirs of the late Nawab of Bhopal.
The court was hearing the appellants' plea against the trial court order which had rejected the appellants' suit for partition, possession and settlement of the estate of late Nawab.
The trial court had ruled that while the appellants' lawsuits were maintainable, were lawfully filed and the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. However the trial court had held that private properties of the late Nawab would not be governed by Muslim Personal Law of Succession.
Appellants argued that Mohd. Hamidullah Khan was the Nawab of Bhopal riyasat and died on February 4, 1960 and claimed that the suit property was his “personal property”.
Following a merger of Bhopal into the Union of India on April 30, 1949, an agreement was executed with the following terms:
Clause II stated that the Nawab would retain his “special rights” after the merger
Clause V stated that all the property which is their personal property, shall be of their absolute ownership and succession of the Gaddi (throne) shall be under the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, 1947
After the Nawab's death in 1960, following Clause VI of the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, Sajida Sultan was declared the Ruler. Further the Government of India who is also a defendant before the trial court–in its January 10, 1962 letter stated that under Article 366(22) of Constitution of India the Nawab's personal property would be Sajida Sultan's personal property.
The appellants argued before the trial court that GOI's order is not lawful, asserting that upon the death of the Nawab his personal estate should have been divided among his heirs under Muslim Personal Law, and Sajida Sultan could not be the sole owner and thus sought partition, possession and settling the account of estate.
The respondents in their response before the trial court claimed that the succession under the 1947 Throne Act followed the primogeniture rule–which can be understood as the right of the first-born child to inherit their parent's estate/property. It was argued that the successor of the throne used to be the absolute successor of the personal property of the Nawab (ruler).
The respondents argued that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction since the plaintiff did not seek to declare the 1962 certificate as illegal; thus, the suit should be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Relying on Article 366(2) of the Constitution, the respondents argued that the personal property of the Nawab was also part of the signed agreement and thus would go to the Ruler, i.e., Sajida Sultan Begum.
Appearing for the appellants Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai, argued that the trial court erred in treating the Nawab's private properties as inseparable from the throne, thereby passing them entirely to the successor of the throne.
Boparai argued that while one person may succeed to the Gaddi (throne) however several heirs may succeed to the private properties of the erstwhile Nawab (ruler) as per the Personal Law of Succession.
Meanwhile the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate S. Sreevastava, argued that the state of Bhopal's merger with India was governed by a unique agreement that laid down specific terms regarding the management of Nawab's personal properties and the manner in which rights over such properties could be asserted.
He pointed out that in the Bhopal Merger Agreement, the Government of India has made a clause and agreed that the rights and privileges of the Nawab shall be continued to his successor and according to him successor does not represent the successor as per the personal rights but the successor represents the next ruler.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal also appearing for the respondents argued that as per the agreement executed between the Government of India and the-then ruler of State of Bhopal Nawab Hamidullah Khan, after his death, a notification was issued by the Government of India as per the provisions of Article 226 Clause 22 and appointed Sajida Sultan as next ruler of Bhopal and Sajida Sultan died on 05.09.1995. He said that these terms cannot be exchanged in view of Article 366 of the Constitution of India.
He submitted that the claim is raised by the appellants claiming right over the property of Sajida Sultan does not lie, because at the relevant point of time the personal law had no application and it had come into force only after the death of Nawab Sajida Sultan and even otherwise the successors of Sajida Sultan can claim the right over the property of Nawab of Bhopal and nobody else.
Findings
The high court opined that the trial court had dismissed the suits while relying on an 1997 Allahabad High Court 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.
However the high court said that the trial court had failed to consider that the ruling had been overruled by the Supreme Court in 2019 in Talat Fatima Hasan through Her Constituted Attorney Syed Mehdi Husain Vs. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Dead) by legal representatives and Others.
Notably the Supreme Court ruled that the parties therein shall be entitled to succeed to the properties of late Nawab Raza Ali Khan "as per personal law".
The high court thereafter said,“In the existing facts and circumstances when the legal issue on which trial Court was relying upon has been reversed and the suits in question are of partition, therefore, in view of the provision of Order 14 Rule 23A of the CPC…I am of the opinion that these cases can be remanded back to the trial".
For context Rule 23A (remand in other cases) states that where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers as it has under Rule 23.
The High Court noted that the trial court adjudicated on the matter after relying on the judgment that had been overturned by the Supreme Court.
The bench emphasized, “The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh and if so required, the trial Court can allow the parties to lead further evidence in view of the subsequent development and changed legal position. It is made clear that since the suits were initially filed in the year 1999, therefore, the trial Court shall make all possible efforts to conclude and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year”.
Thus, the court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court.
For Appellants: Advocates Aadil Singh Bopari, Abhishek Dubey, Ayesha Jamal, K. Jaggi and Gurlabh Singh Sidhu
For Respondents: Senior Advocates S. Sreevastava, Sanjay Agrawal with Advocates Arjun Rao, Sooraj Bajpai, Aishwarya Vikram, Shrikant Mishra, Siddharth Sharma, Adil Usmani, Akhilesh Jain, Sheersh Agrawal, Sanjeev Tuli, Varun Tankha and Harshit Bari
Case Title: Begum Suraiya Rashid v Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan (FIRST APPEAL NO.296 of 2000)