9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notices Issued by the Custodian. 2. Validity of the Will Executed by Khan Bahadur. 3. Ownership of Certain Properties Claimed by the Appellants. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notices Issued by the Custodian: The appellants contended that the notices issued by the Custodian were invalid, arguing that it was obligatory to issue notices under Section 7(1) to all persons interested in the property claimed to be evacuee property. The Custodian issued notices to the first appellant, Noorbanu, and the firm of M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons on March 21, 1955. The appellants argued that no notice was issued to Zarina, who had a 7/48th share in the property. However, it was noted that Zarina had previously been declared an evacuee under the Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee Property Regulation, and her properties were declared evacuee properties on April 29, 1950. The court held that once a person is declared an evacuee, it is unnecessary to issue further notices under Section 7 of the Act. The court also noted that the objection of non-service of notice could only be taken by the person on whom the notice was not served, not by third parties. Additionally, the court found that the notices issued to the firm and the first appellant were not defective, as a sufficient description of the properties was provided. 2. Validity of the Will Executed by Khan Bahadur: The appellants argued that the will executed by Khan Bahadur on September 6, 1948, was valid, and thus Zarina could not be regarded as one of the heirs. The will created a wakf of certain property, made cash bequests, and bequeathed the remaining property to the appellants. The court examined the custom governing the Khoja sect of Muslims and found that Khojas in the former State of Bombay were governed by Hindu law in matters of succession. However, the Shariat Act, 1937, abolished this customary law, making them subject to Mohammedan law. The court held that the Khan Bahadur, residing in Hyderabad, could not plead a custom contrary to Mohammedan law, as per the precedent set in Jahandarunnissa Begum v. Mohd. Moinuddin. Therefore, the will was deemed invalid, and the property left by Khan Bahadur must devolve on his heirs as if he had died intestate. 3. Ownership of Certain Properties Claimed by the Appellants: The appellants claimed that certain properties did not belong to Khan Bahadur. The court examined the evidence and found that: - Noor Bagh, Begumpet, was held benami by Noorbanu for her husband, Khan Bahadur. - Property Nos. 3914 to 3916, Market Street, Secunderabad, belonged to Khan Bahadur. - The dedication of Paterghatti lands for charitable purposes was not proved. - Rockland was included in the will and belonged to Khan Bahadur. - Khan Bahadur had a 1/3rd share in the firm of Messrs Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin and Sons, and Zarina's 7/48th share in this could vest in the Custodian. - The notification regarding the firm of Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Co. was found deficient, and no part of its assets vested in the Custodian. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal with costs, subject to the modification that Zarina's share in the interest held by Khan Bahadur in the assets of M/s. Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Co. could not vest in the Custodian. The notices issued were deemed valid, the will was invalidated, and the ownership of certain properties was clarified.
|
