Here we will learn Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza
Khan in detail
Subject of the Case
Whether under Mohammedan Law the right of ownership exists forever. Whether the English rule of appointment of heir by will applies to Mohammedan Law?
Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
Facts of the Case
On 19th. Nov, 1896 one Nawab Nasir Ali Khan died leaving his Oudh and Juliana estates. The Oudh Estates Act, 1886 governed the estate of Oudh, and personal laws of the parties governed the estate of
Juliana.
On 15th. July, 1896 before his death Nasir Ali Khan executed two wills regarding his above two estates. According to these wills he conferred life interest upon his (i) nephew Nawab Feteh Ali Khan (ii) son Nawab Ali Khan and (iii) Other nephew Nawab Hidayat Ali Khan and appointed them as his heirs.
According to the above wills, the last surviving legatee empowered someone to appoint the heir to any of the offspring
of the above last three surviving legatees.
The terms of the will, Nawab Fateh Ali Khan first appointed Muhammad Ali Khan as the heir of the above estates thereafter. Nawab Hidayat Ali Khan died during the lifetime of Muhammad Ali Khan. Therefore, as a last surviving legatee Nawab Muhammad Ali khan appointed Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan the successor of the above
two estates. Although Nawazish Ali Khan was not born at the time of his appointment as heir yet he obtained the possession
of the estates as heir after the death of Mohammad Ali Khan.
Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
Sardar Ali Raza Khan, the elder son of Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan filed a suit for ejectment from the above two estates against the defendant in the Oudh Chief Court.
Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
Decision of Oudh Chief Court
Both the Trial Court and the Oudh Chief Court held that Nasir Ali Khan conferred the power of appointment valid according to Shia Law, but they determined that he did not intend for it to be exercised in favor of the appellant, who was not born during the lifetime of the testator, making it invalid according to personal law concerning the Juliana estate, while they deemed it valid regarding the Oudh Estate under the Oudh Estates Act. Both the Courts held that the document of 1934 declaring the Mohammad Ali Khan as the last legatee competent to nominate a successor under the will of Nawab Nasir Ali Khan, was a will. The Chief Court in appeal granted a decree to the plaintiff respondent for 1/5 of the Juliana estate as one of the heirs of Mohammad Ali Khan. The defendant filed an appeal to the Privy Council against this decision.
Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
Decision of Privy Council
Their Lordships of Privy Council observed that the power of the appointment of successor contained in the will of Nasir Ali Khan was invalid according to Mohammedan Law. Hence Nasir Ali Khan had no right to appoint his successor by his will. In the present case, the Oudh Estates Act, 1886 will govern the succession on the estate.
Their Lordships further observed that Mohammad Ali Khan appointed the appellant his successor through the document of 30-6-1934, which cannot be said to be a will. The document constituted a deed and not a will.
Regarding the cross-appeal of the respondent, the Oudh estate courts in India held that apart from Mohammedan Law, a party may create a power of appointment under the wide powers of disposition that S.11 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1886 confers, which applies alike to all Taluqdars whether Hindus or Mohammedans.
Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
Principles of Law Laid Down
Mohammedan Law does not recognise the English rule of appointment of heir by will.
English law recognises ownership of limited duration whereas Mohammedan law admits only ownership of unlimited in duration but recognises interest of limited duration in the use of property. Gifts of corpus are known under Mohammedan Law as Hiba and gifts of usufruct as Aritat.
There is no similarity between a power of appointment and a wakf, because in the latter property vests in God or in Wakif or his heirs and all the beneficiary interests take effect out of usufruct.
In case of a gift of corpus property, any condition that derogates from absolute dominion over the subject of the gift will be rejected as repugnant, but if the gift is of limited interest, the gift can take effect out of the usufruct while leaving the ownerships of the corpus unaffected except to the extent that its enjoyment is postponed due to limited interest.
Here we will learn Explain the facts and principles of law in Sardar Nawazis Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Ali Raza Khan in detail
