SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th December, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Sikander Jehan Begum and another, Appellants Petitioners
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Government and others (in both the Appeal and the Petition), Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1960 with Writ Petn. No. 197 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder and Co., with him), for Appellants/Petitioners; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (In the Appeal), and 1 to 5 (In the Petition); M/s. Danial A. Latifi and Sardar Bahdur, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 8 to 13 In the Appeal) and 6 to 11 (In the Petition.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : Writ Petition No. 197 of 1956 and Civil Appeal by Special Leave No. 279 of 1960 arise between the same parties and they raise a short question about the validity of Section 13, sub-section (2) of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (No. X of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act). The decision of this question lies within a narrow compass but the facts leading up to the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition are somewhat complicated and they must be slated at the outset in order that the background of the dispute may be properly appreciated.
2. Sikander Jehan Begum and Khurshid Jehan Teleyawar Begum are the petitioners in the Writ Petition and the appellants in the Civil Appeal. They are the legitimate sisters of Nawab Kamal Yar Jung who died on January 26, 1944. According to the petition, the said Nawab left behind him three legitimate wives and two legitimate sisters but no legitimate children. He had, however, a number of Khawases (concubines) and three illegitimate sons and an illegitimate daughter. These are respondents Nos. 6-9 in the Writ petition. The said illegitimate children were the issues of respondent Nos. 10 & 11 who were the concubines of the Nawab. Respondent Nos. 6-11, however, claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the said Nawab because according to them, respondent Nos. 10 & 11 were the legitimate wives of the Nawab. A dispute as to succession to, the estate of the said Nawab has given rise to the present controversy.
3. The said Nawab belonged to a leading family of Nobles in the Hyderabad State and was possessed of large Jagir and non-Jagir properties. Soon after his death, the Nizam appointed a Commission of Enquiry to hold a regular enquiry into the Virasat of the late Nawab Kamal Yar Jung on February 8, 1944. By the Firman issued by the Nizam in that behalf a direction was given that the Government should take the estate of the late Nawab under its supervision so that after the declaration of the successor, arrangements may be made about its delivery to the proper person. It appears that the Government accordingly took possession of the properties of the Nawab and continued in possession thereafter.
4. On September 17, 1949, Police action commenced and it ended on the 26th September on which date the Military Governor took charge of the administration of the Hyderabad State. On November 9, 1948, the Commission of Enquiry which had been appointed by the Nizam made its report. The report showed that according to the Commission, Husain Khan, Tahawar Husain Khan, Sadiq Husain, Khatija Beg were the legitimate and lawful sons and daughter of the late Nawab, with the result that except for Riyasatunnisa Begum, Lal Bee and Azizunisa Begum who were the wives of the late Nawab, none else could be held entitled to succeed to his estate. It appears that the report thus submitted by the Enquiry Commission did not receive the sanction or approval of the Nizam.
5. Subsequently, on November 22, 1948, the Nizam issued a Firman whereby a new Special Tribunal was constituted according to the opinion of the Military Governor and it was asked to hear the Virasat enquiry of the late Nawab. The Tribunal was given authority to record fresh evidence, if necessary. This Tribunal made its report on April 3, 1949. The majority of this Tribunal took the view that the three widows of the late Nawab were his legitimate wives and ought to get together As-/2 share. They also expressed the opinion that Sheerin Bua and Parichehra Bua were the Mutha wives and their sons Syed Mohd. Hussain Khan, Syed Tahawar Hussain Khan and Syed Sadiq Hussain Khan were the legitimate sons of the late Nawab and so they should all together get As. -/12/ share. The remaining As.-/2-/ share should go to Khedja Begum who, in the opinion of the majority, was the legitimate daughter of the late Nawab.
6. It appears that after the Military Governor was put in charge of the administration of the State of Hyderabad, the Nizam issued a Firman o
Distinguished : Ameerunnissa Begum and others v. Mahboob Begum and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.