Telangana high court clears way for trial in Nizam property dispute, junks Prince Azmet Jah’s plea | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Telangana high court has cleared the way for the trial in a long-running dispute over properties linked to Nizam VII of Hyderabad, dismissing a revision petition filed by Prince Azmet Jah and others and holding that there was no merit in their challenge to the partition suit instituted by Nawab Najaf Ali Khan.The suit, pending before the city civil court, Hyderabad, seeks partition of five properties, including Falaknuma Palace, Chowmohalla Palace, Purani Haveli and King Kothi Palace, besides a declaration that a 2018 sale deed relating to the King Kothi property is void.Justice P Sam Koshy, in an order dated Sept 18, upheld an earlier decision of the XI additional chief judge, city civil court, which had rejected an application filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the original suit, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of alleged under-valuation of court fees.The petitioners contended that Najaf Ali, who claims co-ownership and joint possession of the suit properties, ought to have paid court fees under Section 34(1) of the Telangana Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, based on the market value of his alleged share in the properties, rather than the fixed court fee prescribed under Section 34(2) for co-owners claiming constructive joint possession.They argued that the plaintiff itself disclosed that one of the defendants was in sole and exclusive possession and management of the properties, thereby undermining the plaintiff’s claim of joint possession. On that basis, they urged the high court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and interfere in the matter.Opposing the plea, Najaf Ali submitted that, being a cousin and legal heir, he was deemed to be in constructive joint possession of the properties along with the other heirs. He further argued that the question of possession could be determined only after evidence was led during trial and not at a preliminary stage.The high court observed that its supervisory jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction and can be exercised only where there is a jurisdictional error or where a finding is so contrary to law as to be perverse.The court noted that the plaintiff had, prima facie, demonstrated a share in the properties by virtue of his relationship with the other parties. It further held that the issue of whether Section 34(1) or Section 34(2) of the Act would apply could be decided only after evidence is recorded during the trial.Finding no grounds for interference with the trial court’s order, the high court dismissed the revision petition as “devoid of merit”, paving the way for the partition suit to proceed before the city civil court.