LexAMEERUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS versus MAHBOOB BEGUM AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ -. '
"
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
(1953)
1952
AMEERUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS
\
•
v .
MAHBOOB BEGUM AND 01'HERS.
(PATANJALI SASTHI 0.J., MUKHEHJEA, 0HANDHA·
SEKHARA AIYAR, BosE and GHULAM HASAN J.J.]
Waliuddowla Succession Act, 1950-Act pl'ovidina for
settl~
n&ent of dispu,tes as to succession. between 1Jrivate versons and pro~
hibiting recourse to coitrts of law.-Validity-Equality of the law-
Discriniination-Rea.sonableness-Constitution
of India.,
1950,
Art. 14 (1).
The continuance of a. dispute even for a long period of time
between two sets of rival claimants to the property of ar-private
TJBrson is not a circum'stance of such unusual nature as would in-
vest a case with special or exceptional features and make it rt class
by itself justifying its differentiation fro1u all other cases of suc-
cession disputes, and the fact that a non-judicial authority had
made a report against one set of the claimants is not a reasonable
·ground for depriving thein by legislation of their ordinary rights
under the law and prohibiting the1n Iron1 having resort to courts'
of law for establishing their rights.·
A nobleman of J{yderllhitfl died in 1935 \Yhen it \Vas under
the rule of the N izam,
and disputes as to succession a.rose
betwe_en his legally married wife and two ladies, j\fahbooh Begum
·and i{adiran Begum, \Vho claimed to he his \Vives.
After pro-
tracted proceedings before several non-judicial bodies a report
a.dverse· to.the latter· was made in January, 1950, but before the
· Nizam could issue a firman in accordance 'Vi-'ith it, Hyderabad be-
came a part ol the Indian Union and the Coustitution of India
.came into force.
An enact1nent called the VValiuddowla Succes-
. sion Act, 1950, w"s therefore- passed by tho Hyderabad Legisla-
ture which providecl that ''the claiins of }dahboob Begu1n and
Kadiran Begum and of their respecLive children to participate in
the distribution of the matrooka of the late N awab are hereby
dismissed" and that the above decision "cannot be called in
question in a.ny court of law":
Held, that in sin'gling out two groups of persons consisting of
t,wo ladies and their children out of those Who claimed to be related
to the late N awab and preventing them from establishing their
rights under the personal la\\' which governed the community, in
Courts of law, the Act was discriminatory; that there ¥:as no
rational or reasonable ba,sis for the discrimination, and tlle Act
contravened the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and
was therefore void.
The analogy of private Acts of the British
S.C. R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
405
Parliament is not helpful as the British Parliament enjoys legis-
/!1511
lative omnipotence and there are no constitutional limitations on
its authority or power.
A•neerunnissa
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION:
Civil Appeal
an!ei:,~;,.
No. 63 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and
v.
Order dated 7th November, 1950, of the High Court Mahboob Begum
of Judicature at Hyderabad (Siddique, Rao and
and Oth1rs.
1
Deshpande JJ.) in Civil Case No. 9-A-5-1 of 1950.
~.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and
"'·"
0. K. Daphtary,.Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi
and Ghulam Ahmad Khan, with them) for the appel-
lants.
..
-
B. Somayya and Akbar Ali Khan (B. V. Subharayitdu,
with them) for the respondents.
1952. December 9.
'rhe J udgmeut of the Court
was delivered by
•
MUKHER.TEA J.-This appeal which has
come
before us on a certificate granted by the High Court
of Hyderaba.d under article 132 (1) of the Constitu" '
tion is directed against a judgment of a Full Bench
I
of that Court date~ November 7, 1950, passed on a
petition under article '.3'.rB- of ·the- Constitution. By
this judgment the learned Judges of the High Court
declared an Act, known as the W aliuddowla Succession
Act of 1950, void under article 13(2) of the Constitu-
tion to the extent that it affected the rights of the
present respondents l to 12 who were the petitioners
in the· article 226 proceeding.
'rhe object of the im-
pugned Act, which received the assent of H.E.H. the
Nizam as Rajpramukh of Hyderabad on April 24,
1950, was to put an end to the disputes that existed
at the, time regarding succession to the matrooka or
personal estate of N awab Waliuddowla, a wealthy
nobleman and a high dignitary of Hyderabad, and
what, in substr.i.nce, the Act provided was to dismiss
the claims of succession to the said proExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.