In a setback to actor Saif Ali Khan and his family, who inherited Rs. 15,000 crore properties owned by Bhopal’s erstwhile rulers, the Madhya Pradesh high court has set aside the trial court’s verdict given more than two decades ago, and ordered a retrial in the case.
In its order passed on June 30, the single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi set aside the judgement and decree of the trial court which upheld that the Pataudis (Saif Ali Khan, mother Sharmila Tagore, and his two sisters, Soha and Saba) were the owners of the properties. It directed the trial court to make all efforts to conclude and decide the matter within one year.
The high court has dismissed Saif’s plea challenging the government’s decision to designate the sprawling estate as “enemy property” under the Enemy Property Act.
Nawab Hamidullah was the last ruling Nawab of the princely state of Bhopal. He and his wife, Maimoona Sultan, had three daughters — Abida, Sajida and Rabia. Sajida married Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi and became the Nawab Begum of Bhopal. Their son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, married Sharmila Tagore. After Nawab Hamidullah’s eldest daughter, Abida, migrated to Pakistan, Sajida became the owner of the properties. Later, her son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, became the successor of these properties estimated to be valiued at nearly Rs. 15,000 crore, which were inherited by Saif and his siblings.
The two appeals — one filed by Begum Suraiya Rashid and others, and another by Nawab Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan and others, all heirs of late Nawab Mohammad Hamidullah Khan, said that the trial court had, in its order dated February 14, 2000, dismissed their suits against what they called unfair partition of royal property. Their lawyers said, the partition of Nawab’s personal property should have been done between them and defendants Saif Ali Khan, Sharmila Tagore and 16 other heirs as per the Muslim Personal Law. They opposed the Pataudis for citing the certificate issued by the Indian government on January 10, 1962 in favour of Sajida Begum as the sole successor.
Justice Dwivedi said, “The trial court, without considering other aspects of the matter, had dismissed the suits. Thus… the impugned judgement and decree… are hereby set aside.”
