Bhopal Royal Estate Dispute: MP High Court Orders Retrial in Nawab’s Property Partition Case (Key Notes)

Key Notes on the Dispute

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case No.: First Appeal No. 296 of 2000

Judgment Date: June 2024 (remand decision)

---

Actual Dispute: What Was the Core Issue?

The central legal dispute was over the partition and rightful inheritance of the private properties of Late Nawab Mohammad Hamidullah Khan, the last ruler of the erstwhile princely state of Bhopal.

---

1. Background of Property Ownership:
   1. Nawab Hamidullah Khan passed away in 1960.
   1. Dispute arose regarding who inherited his personal/private properties — whether:
      1. All legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law of Succession, or
      1. Only the successor to the throne, as per the Bhopal Merger Agreement (1949) and the Succession to the Throne Act (1947).
2. Position of Appellants (plaintiffs):
   1. They were other legal heirs of Nawab Hamidullah Khan (e.g., Suraiya Rashid, Qamar Taj, etc.).
   1. Claimed that private properties should be partitioned among all heirs under Muslim Personal Law.
   1. Argued that the Government of India’s 1962 declaration — which gave all property to Sajida Sultan (daughter and declared ruler) — was invalid.
   1. Contended the properties were personal, not inseparable from the throne.
3. Position of Respondents (defendants):
   1. Included heirs of Sajida Sultan, like Saif Ali Khan, Sharmila Tagore, Soha Ali Khan, etc.
   1. Argued that:
      1. The succession followed primogeniture (i.e., ruler’s entire private estate goes to one successor).
      1. The Merger Agreement and Indian Constitution (Art. 366(22)) recognized Sajida Sultan as sole successor to the Nawab’s estate.
      1. The civil court had no jurisdiction unless plaintiffs challenged the 1962 certificate.
4. Trial Court’s Judgment (2000):
   1. Dismissed the appellants’ suit.
   1. Held that the private properties were not governed by Muslim Personal Law.
   1. Relied on a 1997 Allahabad High Court judgment (Talat Fatima Hasan case) to deny partition.
5. Problem Highlighted by High Court:
   1. That 1997 judgment had been overruled by the Supreme Court in 2019.
   1. Supreme Court held that Muslim Personal Law would apply in succession disputes of Nawabs’ personal properties.
   1. Thus, the trial court’s reliance was legally flawed.
6. High Court’s Decision:
   1. Set aside the trial court’s judgment.
   1. Remanded the case for fresh trial, asking the trial court to re-decide:
      1. Considering the 2019 SC ruling.
      1. Allowing new evidence if needed.
      1. Ensuring partition suits are properly decided as per civil procedure.

Legal Issues Involved:

• Whether the private estate of a former ruler is governed by:
  • Personal law (Muslim succession law) or,
  • Merger agreements and princely state succession laws.
• Whether the civil court has jurisdiction when Government of India’s notification declares someone as the successor.
• Validity of the primogeniture rule versus equal inheritance under Muslim Personal Law.

Conclusion:

The actual dispute was whether the private properties of Nawab Hamidullah Khan — after his death in 1960 — should be divided among all heirs under Muslim Personal Law, or whether they automatically passed to his declared successor (Sajida Sultan) due to terms in the Bhopal Merger Agreement and the Succession to Throne Act, 1947.

Since the trial court based its dismissal on an overruled precedent, the High Court ordered a retrial, to ensure that the matter is decided correctly, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling affirming the applicability of personal law in such disputes.