Kiran Raj

In a decision addressing decades-long litigation, the Telangana High Court brought closure to a dispute over the Asman Jahi Estate, a property tied to the House of Paigah in Hyderabad. The litigation began in 1958 and centered on disputes over properties listed under a preliminary decree issued in 1959. In its January 9, 2025, order, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar noted that the properties in question were not available for partition and directed the closure of the case, allowing parties to seek alternative remedies under the law.

The dispute originated when Sultana Jahan Begum, daughter of Nawab Moinuddowla Bahadur, filed a suit in 1953 seeking partition and possession of the Matruka (ancestral) properties of the Asman Jahi Paigah estate. The suit was initially filed in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as O.S. No. 130/1 of 1953 but later transferred to the High Court and renumbered as C.S. No. 7 of 1958.

A preliminary decree was passed on April 6, 1959, based on a compromise agreement among the heirs. The decree appointed Commissioners/Receivers to manage the properties and oversee their eventual division. Schedule A of the decree listed 254 properties, with items 230 to 254 categorized as "Makhtas" (revenue lands). The compromise terms stipulated that these items would be partitioned only upon their release by the Revenue Department.

Despite multiple applications and reports by the Receivers, the properties were never released, leading to protracted litigation. The Receivers submitted reports in 1965, 1966, and 1969, confirming the unavailability of items 230 to 254 for partition. Subsequent efforts to draw final decrees for other properties in Schedule A also failed to bring closure to the matter.

In 2022, the court appointed new Receivers/Commissioners to re-evaluate the case and assist with the final decree process. Their report, submitted on July 6, 2023, confirmed that items 230 to 254 were unavailable for division, as no evidence indicated their restoration or release. This finding was pivotal in the court's decision to formally close the case.

The court also addressed related applications, including Application No. 24 of 2024, which sought a final decree for certain properties under Schedule A. It examined the implications of statutory provisions such as the Jagir Abolition Regulation and relevant judgments, including Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited v. Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay (2015).

The court observed that the absence of restoration or release of the disputed properties precluded their partition. It recorded: “In the instant case, admittedly, there is no material to indicate that the properties mentioned at serial No. 230 to 254 of Schedule 'A' to the preliminary decree have been restored or released in favor of Asman Jahi Paigah.”

Noting the prolonged litigation, the bench stated: “Though a preliminary decree has been passed on 06.04.1959 based on a compromise decree, the litigation went in respect of non-existing properties for the last 66 years.”

The court observed the limited scope of the Receivers' powers, stating their role as custodians rather than adjudicators. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited v. Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay (2015), the bench stated that Receivers must act prudently to preserve properties but cannot adjudicate disputes or determine ownership rights.

The court also took note of the parties' reliance on previous orders and decrees. It observed that although the 1959 preliminary decree provided for the partition of other properties, the disputed items remained unavailable due to unresolved issues with the Revenue Department.

The court concluded the case with the following directives: “Having considered the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel on both sides and submissions of receiver cum commissioner, since the lands are not available physically, the parties may seek their appropriate remedy as available under law.”

The court formally closed the civil suit and directed that pending applications related to the case be decided in light of its observations.

Case Title: Sahebzadi Sultan Jahan Begum v. Nawab Zahir Yar Jung Bahadur
Case Number: C.S. No. 7 of 1958, Application No. 24 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar

[Read/Download order]