SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 585

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Trinity Infraventures Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
M.S. Murthy and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4049-4053 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 2373-2377 of 2020) with Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 24098 of 2022), Civil Appeal Nos. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.8884-8887 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 2203 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 256 of 2022), Civil Appeal Nos. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.8888-8891 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 1584 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 980 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 8872 of 2022), Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. of 2023) (Arising Out of Diary No. 19266 of 2022)
Decided On : 15-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. V N Murthy, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Adv. Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR Mr. P.V. Surendernath, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. A.V.S.Raju, Adv. Mrs. Lekha.sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. M. Venkatesulu, Adv. Mr. Sriharibabu, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. V. V. S. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. S. Murthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Venkat Mayur, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Ms. Nandini Pandey, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR M/S. M. Rambabu And Co., AOR Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv. Mr. Kakara Venkatrao, Adv. Mr. N. Eswara, Adv. Mr. B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Adv. Mr. Bharat J Joshi, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. V N Murthy, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. P.V.SURENDEr Nath, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. A.V.S.Raju, Adv. Mrs. Lekha Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. M Venkatesulu, Adv. Mr. M. Sriharibabu, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Adv. Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Puja Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Mr. Hemendranath Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Prashant Reddy, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere declaration of rights that take place under preliminary decree, parties cannot trade in, on specific items of properties or specific portions of suit schedule properties.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI, Rule 97 to 101 - Jagir Abolition Regulations, 1949 - Claim on partition of Khurshid Jah's estate - Court held that preliminary decree was vitiated by fraud; was not binding on third parties as claims under both Jagir and Inam Abolition Laws were paramount - High Court determined that properties in question could not be partitioned while maintaining the Government's ownership claim. (Paras 226-227)

(B) Suit for Partition - Established that claims of third parties resisting execution could not be disregarded - Court cannot adjudicate title claims of strangers to the partition - earlier decree not conclusive on them. (Paras 134-137)

Table of Content
1. special leave petition granted. (Para 1 , 4)
2. arguments related to ownership and partition. (Para 5 , 36 , 45)
3. historical context of the paigah estate. (Para 6 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. unresolved claims and independent rights. (Para 70 , 173 , 174)
5. final order dismissing all appeals. (Para 226)

JUDGMENT :

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted in Diary No. 19266 of 2022.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. Aggrieved by a common judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in a batch of intra-Court appeals, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in a batch of applications in a civil suit, various parties including the State of Telangana and some third parties have come up with these civil appeals.

5. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for one set of parties who are the appellants herein (and who claim to be the assignees of the decree), Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, Shri Chander Uday Singh, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Shri Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for parties who obstructed the execution of the decree (claim petitioners) and who succeeded before the High Court, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Telangana and Shri V.V.S. Rao, Shri Hemendranath Reddy and Shri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for third parties and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for an Asset Reconstruction Company which has filed an application for intervention.

Background Facts:

6. Hyderabad was a Princely State until it came to be annexed to the Union of India on 18.09.1948 through police action which came to be popularly known as “Operation Polo.” HEH the Nizam was its Ruler till then. While outsourcing is something which we have now come to be familiar with only in the twentieth century, HEH the Nizam seems to have adopted the practice of outsourcing even defence services more than 200 years ago. It seems that the Nizam had the practice of granting certain lands to people for the purpose of supply and maintenance of Armed Forces. The lands so granted came to be known as “Paigah Estate.” The dispute on hand relates to a Paigah granted to a person by name Khurshid Jah and the grant came to be known as Khurshid Jah Paigah. To understand the nature and sweep of the dispute on hand, it may be relevant to take a peep into history.

7. It appears that one Mir-Qamar-ud-din Khan (who was given the title Asaf Jah) was one of the feudal chiefs of the Moghuls and was the Governor of Deccan from 1713 to 1721. Later he proclaimed independence and founded the Asaf Jahi dynasty in Hyderabad.

8. As stated by Gribble in his “History of Deccan”, Asaf Jah brought with him a number of followers, both Mohammadens and Hindus, who were attached to his person and fortunes. To the Mohammedan nobles, he granted Jagirs or estates on military tenure and employed them as his Generals. The Hindus were employed principally in the administrative work in the departments of revenue and finance. To them also he granted Jagirs as remuneration for their services and all these Jagirs whether granted for civil or military purposes came to be regarded as hereditary.

9. Distinguished among the Muslim followers was Mohammed Abul Khair Khan, a member of a noted family which had settled for some generations in Oudh and afterwards in Agra. He had rendered meritorious services in battles and was the recipient of several favours and honours at the hands of the Nizam. He was eventually made a “Commander of 6000 horsemen”, with the title of “Imam Jung.” He died in 1751 A.D. His son, Abul Fateh Khan, who followed in the footsteps of h


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top