HC clears way for trial in Nizam property dispute,dismisses Azmat Jah’s plea

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has cleared the way for trial in a long-running dispute over five properties associated with Nizam VII Mir Osman Ali Khan. Justice Puthichira Sam Koshy dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Prince Azmat Jah and another, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the partition suit at this stage.

The suit, filed by Nawab Mir Najaf Ali Khan, grandson of Nizam VII, seeks partition and separate possession of five properties—Falaknuma Palace, Chowmahalla Palace, Purani Haveli, King Kothi Palace and Harewood and Cedars Bungalow in Tamil Nadu. It also seeks a declaration that a 2018 sale deed relating to King Kothi/Nazri Bagh is void and illegal.

Azmat Jah and S Jah, who are defendants in the suit, had approached the HC challenging an order of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The trial court had rejected their application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The petitioners argued that Najaf Ali Khan had wrongly paid only a fixed court fee under Section 34(2) of the Telangana Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. They contended that, since the plaint itself stated that another defendant was in exclusive possession of the properties and was receiving their income, Khan could not claim constructive joint possession. According to them, he was required to value his alleged share at market value and pay court fee under Section 34(1) of the Act. Khan opposed the plea, maintaining that he was a co-sharer and was therefore entitled to pay the fixed court fee applicable to a suit for partition where joint possession is claimed.

Justice Koshy held that the issue could not be decided at the preliminary stage. The court observed that the relationship between the parties, their respective shares and the question of possession would have to be established through evidence during the trial. The question whether the court fee had been correctly paid under Section 34(1) or Section 34(2) could also be decided after the parties led evidence.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Legal Correspondent

[email protected]