Deccan Chronicle

Focus on registry officer’s mischief

- DC CORRESPOND­ENT HYDERABAD, AUG. 19

The judgment of the special bench significan­tly focused on the mischief done by an officer of its Registry with regard to the alleged final decree in the suit pertaining to the Paigah properties.

The special bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubram­anian and Justice N. Balayogi has pointed out that no final decree was ever passed in Applicatio­n Nos.711 and 712 of 2009 as prayed for by the writ petitioner­s Ms Cyrus Investment­s or their predecesso­rs in interest.

The bench noted that “But still they managed to get a final decree drafted by the Registry of this Court. In other words, what the counsel appearing for the applicant in Applicatio­n No.711 of 2009 did not press for and what the Single Judge did not grant, was graciously granted by an official working in the Registry of the Court. The Registry may have to pin down the official responsibl­e for this mischief.”

Ms Sahebzadi Hameedunni­sa Begum who is defendant No 52 in the CS No 14 of 1958, said that two findings with regard to the non-existence of the final decree and also alleged fraudulent final decree of the special bench gave immense hope to them of getting justice.

“Right from the beginning we have been representi­ng to the authoritie­s concerned about the fraudulent documents floated by various claimants of Paigah properties,” she said.

Referring to the claim of the petitioner­s that they had bought the properties of the Paigahs from the Nizam, the special bench pointed out, “At the outset we are unable to comprehend as to how the shares declared in favour of some parties under a preliminar­y decree for partition could have been first purchased by HEH Nizam VII, then sold to Cyrus Investment­s Limited and thereafter distribute­d among several persons pursuant to a compromise entered into with that person.”

Ms Sahebzadi Hameedunni­sa Begum said “Our claim since the beginning is that the documents of registrati­on were made after the death of the Nizam and they are false and fabricated.” Mr Mohammed Moizuddin Khan, one of the legal heirs of Khursheed Jah Paigah, said that Paigah lands were located in Hafeezpet, Hydernagar, Hashmathpe­t, Malkaram and Nacharam villages and Cyrus Investment­s had made fraudulent claims on the entire Paigah lands.

He said, “The special bench judgment is a very good moral victory for us and it would also put the brakes on future fraudulent transactio­ns on our lands.”

Interestin­gly Nawab Mir Najaf Ali Khan and his sister Sahebzadi Mahmooda Begum, grandson and granddaugh­ter of Nizam VII, also moved the Hyderabad High Court against Cyrus Investment­s and Goldstone Prasad with regard to a sale deed dated February 23, 1967 entered by the Nizam with Cyrus Investment­s, claiming that they did not agree with the sale deed and they would also be brought on record in the CS 14 of 1958.

Ms Sahebzadi Hameedunni­sa Begum who is defendant No 52 in the CS No 14 of 1958, said that two findings with regard to the nonexisten­ce of the final decree and also alleged fraudulent final decree of the special bench gave immense hope to them of getting justice.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India