LexNAWAB SHAQAFATH ALI KHAN & ORS. versus NAWAB IMDAD JAH BAHADUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 589
-r
NAWAB SHAQAFATH ALI KHAN & ORS.
A
v
NAWAB IMDAD JAH BAHADUR & ORS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 846-847 of 2001
MARCH 5, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ)
Constitution of India, 1950:
}
Articles 136 and 142 - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
under - Trust deed called 'H.E.H. Nizam's JewellFJry Trust' - c
Interpretation of - Applications under Trust Act and suits filed
before Chief Judge, City Civil Court - Orders on preliminary
issue on applications but no decree passed - Challenged
under Article 227 - Order on preliminary issue in suits not
~
challenged - Final judgment challenged in appeal - Interim D
order by High Court - Order of Chief Judge, City Civil Court
and interim order of High Court challenged under Article 136
- HELD: No appeal lies against a mere finding - An appeal
would be maintainable only when a decree is passed -
Ordinarily, SLP would not be entertained directly from judgment E
and order of Chief Judge, City Civil Court - An appeal and a
civil revision application are pending in High Court - Trust
./
deed in question is part of a statute - In case of a wrong
interpretation of a statute relating to jurisdiction of a court
enabling it to issue a direction, it would amount to a
F
;urisdictional error - Courts were, therefore, required to
exercise their jurisdiction with more care and caution - SLPs
filed before Supreme Court returned to petitioners so as to
enable them to re-file the same before High Court for
consideration on merits - Matters directed to be considered
J
afresh with pending appeal and miscellaneous applications -
G
Nizam's Trust Deeds (Validation) Act, 1950 - s.3.
Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court under
- Applications filed before Chief Judge, City Civil Court ulss
589
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 4 S.C.R.
A 56 and 61 of Trust Act- Directions issued - HELD: Directions,
if issued, would be binding on trustees- Trustees, if aggrieved,
would be entitled to take recourse to a remedy available before
superior court- If High Court had jurisdiction to entertain either
an appeal or revision or a writ petition, in a given case it,
B subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a
revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice-
versa in exercise of its inherent power - Further, it would not
be correct to say that in the absence of revisional jurisdiction,
remedy under Articles 226 and 227 would also not be available
c in /aw- Indian Trust Act, 1882 - ss. 56 and 61.
The State of Andhra Pradesh. enacted the Nizam's
Trust Deeds (Validation) Act, 1950, s.3 whereof provided
that the trust deed mentioned in the Scheduled would be
valid and effectual for all purposes and would have the
D force of law. By an amendment in the year 1951, trust deed
dated 29.3.1951 called "H.E.H. The Nizam's Jewellary
Trust" was inserted in the Schedule of the Act. Disputes
arose with regard to the terms of the Trust Deed dated
29.3.1951 regarding "Remaining sons and Remaining
E Daughters Fund" expressed in the Will. Original petitions
No. 173/1998 and 253/1998 purported to be u/ss 56 and
61 of the Trusts Act, 1882 and O.S. No. 383/1998 O.S. No.
540/1998 were filed in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad praying for directions to the trustees
F to execute the trust deed as per correct interpretation of
clauses 9 to 12 thereof. A preliminary question was raised
as to whether the surviving remaining sons and
daughters of the Settler were alone entitled to the corpus
allotted to the remaining sons and remaining daughters
G who died issueless. The Court by a common judgment
dated 21.7.1999 gave directions holding, inter alia, that the
Settler intended that even the children of a pre-deceased
remaining son or a remaining daughter were entitled to a
share in the unit allocated to the remaining son or
H daughter who died issueless. Pursuant to the directions,
'\- •
NAWAB SHAQAFATH ALI KHAN & ORS. V.
591
NAWAB IMDAD JAH BAHADUR & ORS.
o('
no decree was prepared in 0.5. 540/1998. Against the A
order dated 21. 7 .1999 revision petitions under Article 227
of the Constitution of India and s.115 CPC were filed
before the High Court. However, the order so far as it
related to the preliminary issue in two suits was not
· challenged. The High Court held the original petitions as B
not maintainable and the order regarding primary issue
~
in two suits as unassExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.