TMI Blog1955 (1) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that have been canvassed before us, it will be necessary to narrate briefly the material facts. 3. The dispute between the parties relates to rights of succession to the 'matrooka' or personal estate left by one Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah, a wealthy noble man and a high dignitary in the State of Hyderabad. The Nawab, who was a member of the Vicar-ul-Umra Paigah family and had been a Minister in the Hyderabad Government for many years, died on 22-2-1935, while he was on a pilgrimage to Hedjaz. Besides extensive Jagir properties appertaining to the Paigah which fetched an income of nearly ₹ 1, 36, 000 per year, he left 'matrooka' or personal estate of considerable value. It is not disputed that Ameer-un-nissa Begam, appellant 1 in the appeals before us, was one of the wedded wives of the Nawab and that she and the five children, whom she bore to her husband, are entitled to their legitimate shares in the properties left by the deceased. There is also no. dispute that the Nawab was legally married to another lady named Fatima-un- nissa Begum, some time in 1920. Fatima-un-nissa Begum left her husband's house a few months after her marriage but the marriage was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved by the Nizam by a 'Firman' dated 9-7-1936. Previous to this, express intimations were given to the surviving relations of Wali-ud-Dowlah under orders of the Nizam that whatever disputes might exist among them regarding 'matrooka' or personal estate of the Nawab should be decided by proper proceedings in a Court of law and pending such decision the estate might be kept under the supervision of the Paigah Committee. A dispute arose some time afterwards regarding the pension to be given to the wives of the Nawab. The Council recommended that Ameerunnissa should be given a pension of ₹ 300 per month and a sum of ₹ 100 should be allowed to Mahboob Begum. Ameerunnissa Begum made a representation that Mahboob Begum was not a legally married wife of the Nawab and consequently was not entitled to claim or receive any pension. By a 'Firman' dated 30-ll-1937, the Nizam directed that the entire pension should go to Ameernnissa Begum and Mahboob Begum should be instructed to prove the legality of her marriage in the Darul Quaza Court. On 8-2-1938, Mahboob Begum and her children filed a suit in the Darul Quaza Court which was a Court establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty view was that a further report should be obtained, before the Council could formulate its final recommendation. Eventually, on the advice of the Council, the Nizam directed by his 'Firman' dated 27-8-1945, that the report of the Special Commission should be scrutinised by an Advisory Committee consisting of three persons, to wit, two Judges of the High Court and the Legal Adviser of the State. The instructions conveyed to the Committee in the 'Firman' were that they should take no. further evidence and should not hear the parties and that what they were to consider was, whether having regard to the documents in writing of the late Nawab and other evidence adduced before the Commission, the three ladies could be held to be legally married wives or not. The three ladies referred to were Mahboob Begum, Quadiran and Fatimaunnissa. This Committee submitted its report on l4-11-1945, and their findings were that the marriage of Fatimaunnissa was proved but that the marriages of Mahboob Begum and Quadiran were not proved. On 20-3-1946, the Executive Council recommended that despite the report of the Committee, the findings of the Special Commission should be accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anction of the Nizam through the Council before carrying it into effect. This direction was embodied in a Resolution of the Executive Council dated 2-9-1948. The Police Action in Hyderabad commenced soon after that and on 25-9-1948, after the Police Action had terminated and a Military Governor was placed in charge of the Hyderabad State, a formal communication of the Resolution made above was made to the Chief Justice. Soon afterwards, on the application of Ameerunnissa Begum made to the Military Governor the execution proceedings before the Chief Justice were stayed by an order dated 16-10-1948. This stay order was again cancelled on 6-11-1948, and the execution proceedings were allowed to continue. On 2-12-1948, the Chief Secretary to the president of the Executive Council wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, enquiring of the latter by what time his report regarding distribution of the 'matrooka' would be ready. In his reply dated 4-12-1948, the Chief Justice intimated that the report was almost ready and would be submitted in a day or two and on the day following the report was sent to the Executive Council of the Nizam. On 24-2-1949, however, a 'Firman' w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Haq Mehar. 7. The Constitution of India came into force on 26-1-1950, and after the integration of Hyderabad with the Indian Union, the Nizam lost his absolute sovereign powers which he could exercise previously. It was, therefore, no. longer possible for him to issue a 'Firman' in terms of the report of Sir George Spence. To obviate this difficulty, recourse was had to legislation and in April 1950, an Act was passed, known as Wali-ud-Dowlah Act (Succession Act), which purported to end the disputes regarding rights of succession to the 'matrooka' or personal estate of the Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah. Section 2(1) contained the material provisions of the Act and laid down that the claims of Mahboob Begum, Quadiran Begum and their children to participate in the distribution of 'matrooka' of the late Nawab Wali-ud- Dowlah are hereby dismissed. The second clause of this section provided that a sum of Rs. One lakh was to be paid to Fatimaunnissa Begum on account of her dower. 8. Section 3 further provided that the decision affirmed in S. 2 could not be called in question in any Court of law. The Act received the assent of the Nizam as Raj Pram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Begum, Quadiran Begum and their children presented an application for execution of this decree before the Chief Justice of the High Court and this execution case was pending when the Military Governor of Hyderabad by his order dated 16-10-1948, directed a stay of the execution proceedings. This order indeed was withdrawn on 5-11-1948, and the Chief Justice did proceed with his work after that and submitted his report on the 5th of December following, but shortly after that the 'Firman' of 24-2-1949 came, which dismissed the claims of these two ladies and their children altogether. The events after that, leading up to the passing of the Wali-ud-Dowlah Succession Act which have been referred to already, prevented any further steps being taken in the execution proceedings. After the decision of the High Court was given on the writ petition and the Wali- ud-Dowlah Succession Act was declared invalid, a fresh petition was filed by Mahboob Begum, Quadiran Begum and their children on 12-3-1951. At that time an appeal had already been taken by Ameerunnissa Begum and her children against the judgment of the High Court in the writ petition and the appellants had obtained a partia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion petition of Mahboob Begum and others, Fatimaunnissa Begum, the other admitted wife of the late Nawab, filed a petition for execution of her decree which she had obtained under the impugned Act and which had been declared to be subsisting by the High Court so far as her claim was concerned. To this execution petition also Ameerunnissa Begum and her children raised an objection and by a similar order dated 5-2-1932, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissed the objections and directed execution to proceed. Against this order also, Ameerunnissa Begum and her children took an appeal to the Hyderabad High Court which was numbered Appeal No. 195 of 1951-52. These three appeals were heard together by the learned Judges of the High Court and were disposed of by one and the same judgment dated 21-1-1954. The learned Judges affirmed the view taken by the City Civil Court and dismissed all the three appeals. It is against the judgment that Appeals Nos. 101 to 103 of 1954 have been brought to this Court. Of these, Appeals Nos. 101 103 arise out of the two execution proceedings commenced by Mahboob Begum, Quadiran Begum and their children, while Appeal No. 102 arises out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was an effective decree at any time that was completely destroyed by the two 'Firmans' of the Nizam dated 24-2-1949, and 7-9-1949. Lastly it is argued that assuming that a valid and operative decree is still in existence, the City Civil Court of Hyderabad has no. jurisdiction to execute the decree. 15. The determination of all these questions depends primarily upon the meaning and effect to be given to the various 'Firmans' of the Nizam which we have set out already. It cannot be disputed that prior to the integration of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive, and there were no. constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any of these capacities. The 'Firmans' were expressions of the sovereign will of the Nizam and they were binding in the same way as any other law; - nay, they would override all other laws which were in conflict with them. So long as a particular 'Firman' held the field, that alone would govern or regulate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sort of judicial tribunal and not a mere administrative body is not disputed on behalf of the respondents. The Nizam certainly intended it to be a substitute for the Darul Quaza Court where the case was pending. As a matter of fact, it appears to have been quite a normal practice in the Hyderabad State for the Nizam to direct disputes regarding succession to estates of princes and noblemen to be decided by Special Commissions of this sort and not by ordinary Courts. What amount of authority the decision of such tribunals would carry undoubtedly depended upon the directions of the Nizam embodied in the relevant 'Firman'. Mr. Aiyangar lays stress upon the word decision in connection with the appointment of the Special Commission by the 'Firman' of 19-2-1939. The Commission was undoubtedly authorised to decide the case referred to it and it was to determine the rights of the different claimants to the personal estate of the Nawab. The decision of the Commission, however, was to be submitted to the Nizam through the Executive Council. We agree with Mr. Aiyangar that the Executive Council was not to act in any independent capacity but was merely to assist the Nizam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntation to the Chief Justice of the High Court and the latter was requested to carry it into effect as soon as possible. On 3-6-1948, the report of the commission was actually transmitted to the Chief Justice for execution. On 28th June following, however, a 'Firman' was issued by the Nizam to the following effect : The Chief Justice should be enjoined to see that whatever report he may prepare in respect of the distribution of 'matrooka', he should obtain my sanction through the Council before carrying it into effect. The learned Attorney General argues that this 'Firman' had the effect of destroying the finality of the decision, assuming that any finality attached to it by the 'Firman' of 26-6-1947. We do not think that we can accept this contention as correct. The language of the 'Firman' clearly indicates that the finality of the decision of the Special Commission so far as it related to the rights of the parties as well as the shares in the 'matrooka' to which the different claimants were entitled, was not in any way altered or affected. The report of the Special Commission would still have to be implemented by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmans' of the 24th February and 7-9-1949, that a proper answer could be given to the question raised in the case, namely, whether the decision of the Special Commission which was made operative by the 'Firman' of 26-6-1947, was by reason of these two later 'Firmans' annulled or made incapable of execution. Paragraph 1 of the 'Firman' of 24-2-1949 runs as follows : As advised by the Military Governor, I direct that the findings of the Legal Advisers, Qamar Hasan and Abu Sayeed Mirza JJ. in the late Wali-ud- Dowlah's case be given effect to. The result of these findings is that the claims of Mahboob Begum and Quadiran Bi on the 'matrooka' of the late Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah are hereby dismissed and Ameer-un-nissa Begum should pay a sum of rupees one lac to Fatima Begum out of the 'matrooka' of the late Nawab. The only other material provision is para 4 which says This matter is now finally decided and the case will not, be re-opened. 21. By the 'Firman' of 7-9-1949, the terms of which we have set out already, this direction was reversed and the case was directed to be referred for opinion and report to Sir Geor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressly dismissed the claims of Mahboob Begum and Quadiran Begum to the 'matrooka' or the personal estate of the Nawab and the concluding words set out above emphasised the fact that this was the final decision on the rights of the parties which would not be re-opened. It could not, therefore, be said that the order of 24-2-1949 was a mere interim order which did not finally decide the rights of the parties. When the 'Firman' of 7-9-1949 was passed, it undoubtedly set aside the order of 24-2-1949, but it is difficult to see on what conceivable principle it could be said to have restored the decision of the Special Commission which was annulled by the order of 24-2-1949. Even if we hold that there was a further application for review in respect to the order of 24-2-1949, on the ground of its being passed 'ex parte', the effect of the subsequent order passed on 7-9-1949 upon the rights of the parties would depend upon the language of the order itself. The respondents would have been right in their contention if this order, after setting aside the 'Firman' of 24-2-1949, had restored the decision of the Special Commission, but it did not do that and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter' but makes a further provision providing for fresh enquiry and report which presupposes the continuance of the repeal of the original 'Firman' of 26-6-1947. This being the position, we are constrained to hold that there was no. final or effective decree in existence subsequent to the issuing of the 'Firman' of 7-9-1949, and the execution proceedings started by the respondents are, therefore, untenable in law. In the view that we are taking it becomes unnecessary to discuss the third point raised by the Attorney General, namely, whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree. 25. Although we feel bound to decide these appeals against the respondents, we cannot shut our eyes to the immense hardships that they have been put to by reason of a series of arbitrary and capricious 'Firmans' issued by the Nizam from time to time. The result has been that the respondents have for these long years been deprived of the right to have their disputes decided according to law by a competent Court and a good deal of time and money has simply been wasted. As matters stand, all the proceedings subsequent to the withdrawal of the suit institut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
