Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order Recognising Saif Ali Khan Family As Sole Heirs | Partition Suit Over Nawab Of Bhopal Estate Remanded For Fresh Decision On Succession Under Muslim Law|
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi allowed two first appeals, setting aside a 2000 judgment that had dismissed partition suits related to the estate of the former Nawab of Bhopal. The Court directed that both suits be remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The order was issued after it was noted that the trial court had relied on a precedent that had since been overruled by the Supreme Court. The High Court concluded that the legal issue underlying the trial court's dismissal had been reversed and that "in view of the provision of Order 14 Rule 23A of the CPC," the case required retrial. The Court also noted the suits' nature involving partition, possession, and rendition of accounts among family members, holding that only a trial court could determine shares and issue preliminary decrees.
The appeals originated from two civil suits dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Bhopal, through a common judgment dated 14.02.2000 in Suit No. 63-A/1999 and Suit No. 64-A/1999. The suits were filed by legal heirs of the deceased Nawab of Bhopal, Mohd. Hamidullah Khan, seeking partition, possession, and settling of the estate left by him.
As per the plaintiffs, Nawab Mohd. Hamidullah Khan passed away on 04.02.1960, leaving behind certain private properties listed in detail in both suits. The plaintiffs and defendants are described as legal heirs of the deceased, with a detailed genealogy provided in the judgment. It was contended that the estate left behind by the Nawab was his personal property and ought to be divided among the heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law.
On 30.04.1949, the Bhopal Riyasat merged into the Union of India through an agreement containing Clause II and Clause V. Clause II stated that special rights of the Nawab would continue post-merger, while Clause V affirmed that personal properties would remain under absolute ownership and succession would follow the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, 1947.
The plaintiffs contended that despite these provisions, the estate should devolve per Muslim Personal Law. They asserted that the Government of India’s letter dated 10.01.1962, which recognized Sajida Sultan as the successor and holder of the personal property under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, was unlawful. They argued that the estate could not be treated as the absolute personal property of Sajida Sultan.
In defense, the respondents argued that succession under the 1947 Act followed the rule of primogeniture, making the successor to the throne the sole owner of the Nawab's personal property. They relied on the 1962 Government certificate and asserted that the civil suits were not maintainable, as the plaintiffs had not sought a declaration against the said certificate.
The trial court framed six issues, including whether the personal properties were subject to Muslim Law, whether Sajida Sultan succeeded exclusively, and whether the 1962 certificate was illegal. It upheld its jurisdiction over the matter and stated that the plaintiffs had the right to institute the suits. However, the trial court dismissed the suits relying on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Talat Fatima Hasan v. His Highness Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur and others, AIR 1997 All 122.
That judgment, however, had subsequently been overruled by the Supreme Court in Talat Fatima Hasan through Her Constituted Attorney Syed Mehdi Husain v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (Dead) by legal representatives and Others, (2020) 15 SCC 655.
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants filed First Appeal No. 437/2000 and First Appeal No. 296/2000 before the High Court.
The High Court noted that the trial court had dismissed the suits solely based on the overruled precedent. It recorded "though, the trial Court without considering the other aspects of the matter has dismissed the suits relying upon the judgment reported in AIR 1997 All 122... but failed to consider the fact that later on it has been overruled by the Supreme Court."
It stated that the nature of the suits was one of partition, and hence, in light of Order 14 Rule 23A of the CPC, remand was appropriate. It quoted the provision in full, stating its application to cases requiring retrial.
Justice Dwivedi referred to Supreme Court precedent in Shivakumar and Others v. Sharanabasappa and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 277, and Mohan Kumar v. State of M.P., (2017) 4 SCC 92, to explain when remand is warranted. The Court noted, "Such cases where retrial is considered necessary because of any particular reason and more particularly for the reason that adequate opportunity of leading sufficient evidence to a party is requisite, stand at entirely different footings."
The Court also cited High Court precedent from Vipin Kumar and others v. Sarojini, 2013 (1) MPLJ 480, listing six contingencies under which remand is proper. Justice Dwivedi remarked that when suits involve partition, and the trial court's decision is based on an overruled precedent, retrial becomes necessary to ensure fair adjudication of shares and estate.
In assessing the rival contentions, the Court recorded the appellants' submissions that the trial court had wrongly equated the throne with private property. The appellants submitted that "the private properties of the Nawab (ruler) has nothing to do with the succession to the Gaddi... the personal property shall be devolved among the successors as per the provisions of Mohammedan Law."
The respondents argued that the terms of the Bhopal Merger Agreement governed the estate and that under Article VII, the property devolved to the next ruler, Sajida Sultan. They argued that as per Article 366(22) of the Constitution, the agreement terms could not be challenged in any court.
The Court acknowledged these arguments but reiterated that the trial court's dismissal based solely on the overruled precedent, without addressing other factual and legal issues, necessitated remand.
The Court explicitly held, "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 Court for deciding it afresh." It added, "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..."
The High Court directed that "the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be and are hereby set aside." It further instructed the trial court to "decide 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."
Given that the suits were filed in 1999, the High Court directed the trial court to "make all possible efforts to conclude and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year."
Applications I.A. Nos. 4181/2022 and 4182/2022 filed for recalling an earlier order refusing impleadment were also disposed of. The Court permitted the parties to file appropriate applications before the trial court, clarifying that such applications should be considered independently of the High Court’s present judgement.
It further noted an earlier liberty granted to the parties to approach revenue authorities with fresh applications, reiterating that post-remand, such grievances may be raised before the trial court without prejudice.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Shri Aadil Singh Bopari, Shri Abhishek Dubey, Ms. Ayesha Jamal, Shri K. Jaggi, Shri Gurlabh Singh Sidhu, Advocates
For the Respondents: Shri S. Sreevastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Arjun Rao, Shri Sooraj Bajpai, Shri Aishwarya Vikram, Shri Shrikant Mishra, Shri Siddharth Sharma, Shri Adil Usmani, Shri Akhilesh Jain, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Sheersh Agrawal, Shri Sanjeev Tuli, Shri Varun Tankha, and Shri Harshit Bari, Advocates
Case Title: Begum Suraiya Rashid & Others v. Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan & Others; Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan & Others v. Nawab Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan & Others
Case Numbers: First Appeal No. 437 of 2000 and First Appeal No. 296 of 2000
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
