Recently, in a development that rekindles one of Hyderabad’s most closely watched property disputes, the XI Additional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court of Hyderabad has dismissed an interlocutory challenge filed against a partition suit instituted by Nawab Najaf Ali Khan, a legal heir of Nizam VII, Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, over several historic royal estates collectively valued at around Rs. 10,000 crore.
The suit, filed by Najaf Ali Khan, seeks partition and separate possession of a 0.44% share in five landmark properties, Falaknuma Palace, Chowmahalla Palace, Purani Haveli, King Koti Palace (Nazri Bagh Palace) in Hyderabad, and Harewood Cedars Bungalow in Ooty, Tamil Nadu. The claimed share, valued at approximately Rs. 44 crore, forms part of the sprawling legacy of the erstwhile Nizam’s estate.
Opposing the maintainability of the suit, the defendants had moved an interlocutory application alleging that the plaintiff had “deliberately undervalued the properties to evade payment of the correct ‘ad valorem’ court fee,” invoking Section 34(1) of the Telangana Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. They asserted lawful possession over the palatial estates and urged the Court to direct recalculation of the suit valuation in accordance with prevailing market rates, highlighting that one of the properties had been leased to the Taj Group and converted into a seven-star hotel.
Najaf Ali Khan, in his counter, maintained that he had paid the requisite court fee as per law and emphasised his legitimate claim as a legal heir. He also sought a declaration that a 2018 sale deed executed by one of the defendants in favour of another was void, contending that the executor lacked ownership or title at the time of execution.
After hearing both sides, Judge R. Danie Ruth observed that, “The valuation of the suit and the sufficiency of the court fee are matters intertwined with factual issues, including the nature of possession, title, and relationship between parties, and such questions cannot be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial.”
The Court further held that “At this preliminary stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the plaintiff is excluded from possession in a manner that would warrant recalculation of the ‘ad valorem’ court fee.”
Holding that such objections could only be examined on evidentiary grounds, the Court dismissed the interlocutory plea, thereby allowing the original suit to proceed to trial.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
