Supreme Court Remands Appeal In 1964 Suit To High Court For Fresh Decision After 16 Years

The Supreme Court recently remanded to the Allahabad High Court an appeal arising out a suit filed in 1964 in a property dispute. The second appeal in the suit was filed before the High Court in 1975. The High Court decided the second appeal in 2006, after 31 years.

The appeal against the High Court judgment was filed before the Supreme Court in 2006. After 16 years, the Supreme Court has now remanded the appeal to the High Court, observing that certain inadmissible evidence was relied upon and relevant materials were overlooked.

The suit was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1964 in the Rampur District Court seeking to reclaim a property from Farooqi Begum, one of the widows of the Nawab of Rampur. While she claimed that the property was endowed to her by the Nawab in 1924 ,the State argued that the properties of the erstwhile rulers were taken over by it. The State alleged that that the defendant had got her name recorded in the revenue records after colluding with some officials.

Within two years, the trial court decreed the suit in 1966. However, in 1971, the District Court ordered a re-trial by allowing the defendant's appeal. In 1973, the trial court again decreed the suit, which was affirmed by the District Court in 1975 by dismissing the first appeal of the defendant.

The defendant filed the second appeal before the High Court in 1975, which was dismissed in 2006.

The further appeal filed by the legal representatives of Farooqi Begum in Supreme Court in 2006 was decided in 2022 by a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath.

The bench observed that the State did not produce any evidence to show that it was in possession of the property throughout after its resumption in 1930.

"The courts below have proceeded on assumptions and presumptions to hold in favour of the State on the question of possession and to decree the suit", the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath stated. The judgment also noted that the courts below have ignored the documentary evidence produced by the defendants to show their possession.

"We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and are of the view that the High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant­appellant. Further, the High Court ought to have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record and only thereafter arrived at a conclusion", the Supreme Court said.

Therefore, the Court said that the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. "We also request the High Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible", the Court said while allowing the appeal.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appeared for the appellants and Advocate Tanmay Agarwal appeared for the State.

Case Title : Farooqi Begum through legal representatives vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Click here to read/download the judgment