Judgement

B. K. MUKHERJEA C.J.I.: These three appeals are directed against a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court dated 21-1-1954, by which the learned Judges affirmed, on appeal, three orders made by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad in three analogous execution proceedings arising out of the execution of the same decree. Two of these three execution cases were commenced by respondents 1 to 12 in Appeals Nos. 101 and l03 of this Court, while the third case was started by respondent 1 in Appeal No. l02. The appellants in the three appeals were the objectors in all the three execution proceedings and their objections having been overruled by both the courts below, have come up on appeal to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution.

2. This litigation has had a long history behind it, and to appreciate the points that have been canvassed before us, it will be necessary to narrate briefly the material facts.

3. The dispute between the parties relates to rights of succession to the matrooka or personal estate left by one Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah, a wealthy noble man and a high dignitary in the State of Hyderabad. The Nawab, who was a member of the Vicar-ul-Umra Paigah family and had been a Minister in the Hyderabad Government for many years, died on 22-2-1935, while he was on a pilgrimage to Hedjaz. Besides extensive Jagir properties appertaining to the Paigah which fetched an income of nearly Rs. 1,36,000 per year, he left matrooka or personal estate of considerable value.

It is not disputed that Ameer-un-nissa Begam, appellant 1 in the appeals before us, was one of the wedded wives of the Nawab and that she and the five children, whom she bore to her husband, are entitled to their legitimate shares in the properties left by the deceased. There is also no dispute that the Nawab was legally married to another lady named Fatima-un-nissa Begum, some time in 1920. Fatima-un-nissa Begum left her husband s house a few months after her marriage but the marriage was never dissolved. The only claim put forward by her against her husband s estate which is material for our present purpose is one to recover a sum of Rs. One lakh as dower debt.

The controversy between the parties really centred round the point as to whether two other ladies, to wit, Mahboob Begum and Quadiran Begum were legally married wives of the late Nawab, or whether they were mere kavases or permanent concubines kept by him. If there was no legal marriage between them and the Nawab, it is not disputed that neither they, nor their children, though admittedly begotten on them by the Nawab, would be entitled to any share in the matrooka or the personal estate left by the deceased. Mahboob and Quadiran are respectively respondents 1 and 5 in Appeals Nos. 101 and 103 before us. Respondents 2 to 4 in these appeals are the children of Mahboob, while respondents 6 to 12 are the sons and daughters of the Nawab born of Quadiran Begum.

4. The dispute first arose before the Paigah Trust Committee (Atiat) whose duty it was to distribute the income of the Paigah estate amongst the heirs of the late Nawab. It appears that in April 1935, shortly after Ameer-un-nissa Begum, who had accompanied her husband to Mecca, returned to Hyderabad after the death of the latter, the Paigah Committee addressed letters to Ameer-un-nissa, Fatima-un-nissa and Mahboob Begum enquiring about the wives and children left by the Nawab. No letter, it seems, was addressed to Quadiran. On a consideration of the replies given by the addressees and also the statements made on their behalf at the hearing before the Committee, the latter drew up a report which was submitted to the Executive Council of the Nizam.

The Committee proceeded on the footing that the Nawab s marriage with Ameer-un-nissa Begum was beyond dispute but as Mahboob Begum did not produce her marriage certificate even after repeated demands by the Committee, s