Setback to Saif Ali Khan as HC orders retrial in ₹15,000 Cr property case
text_fields
Jabalpur: In a significant legal setback for actor Saif Ali Khan and his family, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered a retrial in the decades-old dispute over royal properties valued at around ₹15,000 crore, originally owned by the erstwhile rulers of Bhopal.
In its order dated June 30, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of the High Court set aside the February 14, 2000 judgment and decree of the Bhopal district court, which had upheld the ownership rights of the Pataudi family — including Saif Ali Khan, his mother Sharmila Tagore, and his sisters Soha and Saba — over the disputed properties. The High Court directed the trial court to hear the case afresh and strive to conclude the matter within one year.
The legal battle centres around the inheritance of properties belonging to Nawab Hamidullah Khan, the last ruling Nawab of Bhopal, and his wife Maimoona Sultan. The couple had three daughters — Abida, Sajida, and Rabia. After Abida migrated to Pakistan, Sajida Begum, who married Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi and became the Nawab Begum of Bhopal, inherited the properties. Their son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi — a former Indian cricket team captain who married actress Sharmila Tagore — subsequently became the successor to these assets. After his death, the inheritance passed to Saif Ali Khan and his siblings.
The case was reopened after two appeals were filed by other heirs of Nawab Hamidullah — Begum Suraiya Rashid and Nawab Mehr Taj Sajida Sultan, among others — challenging what they called an unfair partition of the royal estate. They claimed that the 2000 ruling unjustly dismissed their suits and argued that the distribution of the Nawab’s personal property should have been carried out among all heirs, including Saif Ali Khan, Sharmila Tagore, and 16 others, under Muslim Personal Law.
The appellants contested the reliance on a 1962 Government of India certificate that recognised Sajida Begum as the sole successor of the private properties. They argued that the trial court ignored several legal aspects and had based its judgment on a precedent that had already been overruled by the Supreme Court.
Justice Dwivedi, agreeing with the appellants, observed that the trial court had failed to consider key legal points and allowed its decision to be guided by a superseded judgment. He set aside the ruling and stated that if required, the trial court could permit the parties to present further evidence in light of new developments and the current legal framework.
The order also referred to the historical agreement signed on April 30, 1949, under which the princely state of Bhopal merged with the Indian Union. This agreement contained provisions ensuring that the Nawab’s personal properties would remain under his absolute ownership and that succession to the throne would follow the Bhopal Succession to the Throne Act, 1947.
The High Court has instructed the trial court to make all possible efforts to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within one year, considering that the suits were originally filed in 1999.
With PTI inputs
