1. Beneficiaries of an estate sought to prevent the release of sealed property by authorities, claiming ownership as legal heirs to property allegedly excluded from prior partition proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2239
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ., N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Mohd. Afzal Khan and others – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana and others – Respondent
WP No.35106 of 2018
Decided On : 21-03-2025
Important Points
Claimants cannot seek to protect or claim assets not specified in a partition suit's preliminary decree/compromise memorandum or within the explicit scope of obtained succession certificates.
Subject
Civil Law - Succession and Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Part X - Claim for release of jewellery boxes - Right of legal heirs - Absence of assets in preliminary decree or compromise memorandum - Scope of succession certificates - Where specific assets are not mentioned in a compromise memorandum or preliminary decree of a partition suit, and the succession certificates produced are restricted to specific monetary amounts, the claimants cannot seek a direction to restrain the release of such assets to third parties. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of a party in a partition suit, sought a direction to prevent the release of five sealed jewellery boxes held in safe custody to any third party. They contended that the assets belonged to their predecessor-in-interest and were entitled to their shares based on a preliminary decree in a partition suit and subsequent succession certificates.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the subject jewellery boxes were neither mentioned in the memorandum of compromise nor in the preliminary decree of the relevant partition suit. It was further noted that the petitioners had not filed any objections regarding these assets during the final hearing of the suit. Additionally, the succession certificates produced by the petitioners were issued only for specific amounts—namely a recurring sum and a fixed deposit—and did not extend to the jewellery boxes in question.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction restraining the release of jewellery boxes to third parties based on a partition decree and succession certificates that do not specifically include said assets.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for the protection or release of specific assets is mis-conceived and devoid of merit if those assets are not part of the decree or compromise in the underlying partition suit and fall outside the specific scope of the succession certificates granted to the claimants. (Para 12)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of a party in a partition suit, sought a direction to prevent the release of five sealed jewellery boxes held in safe custody to any third party. They contended that the assets belonged to their predecessor-in-interest and were entitled to their shares based on a preliminary decree in a partition suit and subsequent succession certificates.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the subject jewellery boxes were neither mentioned in the memorandum of compromise nor in the preliminary decree of the relevant partition suit. It was further noted that the petitioners had not filed any objections regarding these assets during the final hearing of the suit. Additionally, the succession certificates produced by the petitioners were issued only for specific amounts—namely a recurring sum and a fixed deposit—and did not extend to the jewellery boxes in question.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction restraining the release of jewellery boxes to third parties based on a partition decree and succession certificates that do not specifically include said assets.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for the protection or release of specific assets is mis-conceived and devoid of merit if those assets are not part of the decree or compromise in the underlying partition suit and fall outside the specific scope of the succession certificates granted to the claimants. (Para 12)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: (Ms.) Sneha Bhogle
For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Revenue
For the Petitioner: (Ms.) Sneha Bhogle
For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Revenue
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed entitlement as legal heirs to specific seized articles while seeking to prevent release to third parties, asserting their share was never partitioned or settled. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court found the subject property was never part of the original compromise, partition decree, or succession certificates held by the petitioners, rendering their claims unsubstantiated. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 )
4. A writ petition seeking to restrict the release of property cannot be maintained when the subject property was excluded from prior partition decrees and remains unproven as a beneficiary's share. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit. (Para 13 )
6. Can beneficiaries of an estate successfully seek a mandamus to block the release of seized assets not included in a final decree?
No. When properties are excluded from the memorandum of compromise and the final partition decree, they are not available for further partition or individual distribution as a matter of right through a writ petition. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. What is the legal effect of failing to include specific properties in a final decree or partition agreement?
Properties omitted from the scope of a final partition decree do not automatically fall to the heirs as identifiable shares, and their status remains unresolved or outside the scope of previous judicial settlement. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
N.V.Shravan Kumar, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to release the five sealed jewellery boxes deposited with respondent No.4 in safe deposit boxed being (i) 20/57-102 dated 05.07.1961; (ii) 21/24-160 dated 31.07.1962; (iii) 22/17- 172 dated 10.06.1963 and (iv) 45812 dated 08.04.1976 and (v) 70058 dated 24.04.1980 to any third party without deciding the rights and share of the petitioners in the above property or otherwise it would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to decide the rights and shares of the petitioners in the jewellery which is in the custody of respondent No.4 before taking any decision to deliver the jewellery to any third party.
2. The petitioners herein claim to be legal heirs of defendant No.24 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 i.e., Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum w/o. Late Nawab Moin Ud Dowla Bahadur who is none other than the step mother of Late Nawab Zaheer Yar Jung Bahadur. It is stated that after the demise of Nawab Moid Ud Dowla, the erstwhile HEH Nizam was pleased to appoint late Nawab Zaheer Yar Jung (defendant No.1 in C.S.No.7 of 1958) as Amir E Paigah of all the properties including movables and immovables belonging to Asman Jahi Paigah and his son Nawab Moin Ud Dowla Bahdur. It is further submitted that upon the direction of Nawab Zaheer Yar Jung (Amir E Paigah), the family members including Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum deposited all their movable and immovable properties including jewellery and artifact in his custody and later was confiscated by the Department of Customs, Bombay and the same was taken into custody by respondent No.3 and deposited in the safe custody of respondent No.4 being boxes (i) 20/57-102 dated 05.07.1961; (ii) 21/24-160 dated 31.07.1962; (iii) 22/17-172 dated 10.06.1963 and (iv) 45812 dated 08.04.1976 and (v) 70058 dated 24.04.1980.
3. It is the further case of petitioners that Late Nawab Zaheer Yar Jung being the only custodian of the jewellery and the said movables and artifacts, and at no point of time assigned/transferred or conveyed the said jewellery in favour of third parties. It is submitted that C.S.No.7 of 1958 was filed by one Sultan Jahan Begum against Nawab Zaheer Yar Jung seeking partition and separate possession of the property belonging to Nawab Moin Ud Dowla Bahdur. During the pendency of the said suit, some of the defendants have entered into compromise with the plaintiff in pursuance of which preliminary decree was passed by this Court on 06.04.1959. As per the said decree, Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum i.e., defendant No.24 was entitled to her share in all the properties of Asman Jah including Jagir and other properties belonging to the Nawab Moin Ud Dowla.
4. As the matters stood thus, the Nizam E Atiyat was pleased to conduct enquiry and after enquiry, issued Muntakab No.3 in favour of Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum and other family members and that Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum passed away on 13.03.1970 issueless. In view of the same, all the legal heirs of Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum will be entitled for their respective shares as per Mohammaden Law. It is also submitted that Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum during her life time had gifted her share in all movable and immovable properties to her nephews (i) Mohd.Hussain Khan, (2) Mohd.Shamsheer Khan and (3) Mohd.Ghous Khan in the year 1965 and the receiver was paying jagir commutation amount from time to time to Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum and after her demise the said amounts were credited to the account of suit itself. Thereafter, the nephews of Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum filed O.S.No.1254 of 1972 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Jagir Administrator seeking declaration that they are the legal heirs of Late Smt.Raheem Unissa Begum and are entitled to get jagir commutation amount. The said suit was decreed holding that each of the said
