Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Syed Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.A. No. 8129 of 2009 and C.A. No. 8130 of 2009
Decided On : 13-08-2014
Subject
Succession Law - Primogeniture
Act Referred
MURSHIDABAD ESTATE MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT : S.3, S.3(2)
Headnote
Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933 - Section 3 – Evidence – Acquitted – Jurisdiction - great grandfather (hereinafter referred to as (the Writ Petitioner) was independent ruler of Bengal Bihar and Orissa With advent of the British Rule he entered into an agreement According to the writ Petitioner as per his indenture the properties mentioned therein were to be enjoyed by and his heirs and successors in perpetuity- Held, Coming to claim Appellant in Civil Appeal court have noticed that High Court understood said claim have been made through the predeceased sister of the original writ Petitioner daughter of second This also appears to be basis of claim earlier raised by the Appellant before this Court in Civil - Considering claim of Appellant said basis High Court took view that claim inheritance as Law of Primogeniture excludes the right of a female or any claim through a female heir - While no fault can be found with said understanding what cannot be ignored is the fact that the Appellant also had a claim as the son who married the only daughter of second sister of original writ Petitioner - This is evident from the genealogical table which forms part of order of the High Court - As the said genealogical table was before the High Court while considering claim of the Appellant table was considered by the High Court totality of the picture emanating from the genealogical table our considered ought to have been taken into account by High Court order of this Court in Civil Appeal though records the basis of the claim made before it by the Appellant was certainly not conclusive of the issue which was left for determination by the High Court order of High Court unfortunately takes into account part of claim ignoring the other part which is evident from admitted records of case – Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 2051 of 2003. A recital of the facts in Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2009 would suffice for the purpose of adjudication of both the appeals. The impugned order passed by the High Court was on the basis of a remand made by this Court by its order dated 22nd February, 2000 in Civil Appeal No. 1680 of 1994. As the case has a long and chequered history, the relevant facts can be conveniently recapitulated from the aforesaid order of this Court, the relevant part of which is extracted below:
"The great grandfather of Syed Fatyeb Ali Meerza (hereinafter referred to as ('the Writ Petitioner') was the independent ruler of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in the year 1891. With the advent of the British Rule he entered into an agreement on 12th March, 1891. According to the writ Petitioner as per his indenture the properties mentioned therein were to be enjoyed by the Nawab Bahadur and his heirs and successors in perpetuity. One change which was made was that instead being regarded as the Nawab Nazam of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa he was to have the title of Nawab Nizam of Murshidabad. The first Nawab died in the year 1908 and he was succeeded by his elder son Wasif Ali Meerza.
In 1933 the management of the Estate of the Nawab of Murshidabad was taken over under the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933. According to the writ Petitioner this management was assumed for and on behalf of the Nawab and for the benefit of the Murshidabad family.
The Second Nawab Wasif Ali Meerza died in the year 1959 and his eldest son Waris Ali Meerza succeeded him as the third Nawab of Murshidabad. This Nawab died in the year 1969. According to the writ Petitioner the third Nawab did not leave any male heir who could legitimately succeed Waris Ali Meerza (the second Nawab of Murshidabad), he was therefore entitled to succeed and be recognized as Nawab Bahadur.
... .... .... ....
... .... .... ....
... .... .... ....
In the meantime Murshidabad Estate Trust Act, 1963 was enacted for the purpose of creation of a trust in respect of the properties enjoyed by the second Nawab of Murshidabad. This trust was created for the benefit of his sons and daughters including the writ Petitioner. For the purposes of this appeal we may only note that apart from right of residence in at least one of the, properties of the second Nawab the writ Petitioner was also entitled to receive a monthly sum from the income of the trust. This Act clearly stated that the allowances which were payable were heritable and one of the persons to whom this allowance was to be paid was Muzafar Jah Syed Sajid Ali Meerza. He was stated to be the son of the second Nawab by his wife by muta marriage.
Further difficulties for the Murshidabad family arose with the enactment of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980. Through the preamble of the act stated that it was to provide for the management of the properties of the Murshidabad Estate, what in fact it did was that by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act the properties of the Murshidabad Estate were transferred to the Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provided that with the transfer of the said properties the State Government could take such steps as it considered necessary for securing the possession thereof.
The writ Petitioner then filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of the 1980 Act.....
The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion, repelling the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent, that the writ Petitioner has a locus standi to file writ petition. Three sections, namely, Sections 10 and 12 were struck down and the writ petition was disposed of.
Both the writ Petitioner as well as the State of West Bengal filed appeals before the Division Bench
