New Delhi [India], August 8 : The Supreme Court on Friday issued an interim stay on a June 30 order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had sent a long-standing property dispute involving the royal estate of Bhopal's last Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, and great-grandfather of actor Saif Ali Khan, back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar also issued notice on a plea of Omar Faruq Ali and Raashid Ali, descendants of the elder brother of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who have filed the appeal challenging the High Court's order.
The High Court had set aside the trial court's February 14, 2000 judgment, which upheld the exclusive right of Sajida Sultan, the Nawab's daughter, her son the late Mansoor Ali Khan (former Indian cricketer) and her heirs, actor Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan and veteran actress Sharmila Tagore to the Nawab's estate.
It had said that the trial court's ruling was based on a 1997 Allahabad High Court verdict which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019. But instead of applying the 2019 precedent and deciding the case conclusively, the High Court remanded the matter for re-evaluation.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, advocates Adil Singh Boparai and Sourav Roy appeared for the petitioners.
The order of the High Court arose from two appeals filed by the Nawab's relatives, including Begum Suraiya Rashid (since deceased) and her children Mahabano (also deceased), Niloufar, Nadir and Yawar - now represented by their legal heirs, including the present petitioners - and Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan, another daughter of the Nawab.
They sought partition, possession, and settlement of the Nawab's estate.
"The remand by the High Court was neither in the interest of the parties nor was it in the expediency of justice, as the original Suits were filed in 1972 and they have remained undecided for almost half a century. Further, the First Appeals, filed in the year 2000, have been adjudicated after 25 years. The remand will only further protract the trial and amounts to a denial of justice to the parties herein." the appeal stated.
The appeal added, "At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that routine remand which results in delay to the parties where there is no ground, nor requirement of any additional evidence results in grave miscarriage of justice."