TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1955 (4) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oining "hereditary lands" together with the income and profits, to the respondent. 2. The High Court granted the writ and the State of Hyderabad appeals. 3. The respondent's case is that the Dargah contains the tomb of one of his ancestors and that he and his ancestors have been the hereditary Sajjadas and Mutawallis of the Dargah for generations. In the year 1914, when the respondent's brother Syed Hussain was in possession, the Ecclesiastical Department of the State stepped in and entrusted the supervision of the Dargah to one Azam Ali. He was removed in 1920 and the Ecclesiastical Department took over the supervision under a Firman of the Nizam which directed the Department to supervise the Dargah until the rights of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablish from them his possession and that of his ancestors for generations, and also that the Ecclesiastical Department took over possession from him. He also said that his descent from at least Syed Mir Saheb, his grandfather, was proved and that it was also established that Syed Mir Saheb was a hereditary Sajjada of the Dargah. All this is, in our opinion, beside the point. The petition and the appeal can be disposed of very shortly on another ground. 6. We do not intend to say anything about the facts of title and possession lest it prejudice future litigation, should there be any. We will assume, without deciding, that all that the respondent says about his hereditary rights and his possession is true. But whether he was in possession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Ecclesiastical Department of the State. He, therefore, directed that whoever was out of possession should go to the Courts to establish his rights. Then he proceeded to consider who were in possession and held that Mahbubali, Syed Hussain (the respondent's brother) and Mohammed Jahangir, 'Mujawirs', were in possession before they were dispossessed and so decided that these three persons should be given possession and that the person out of possession should be directed to seek his remedy in a Court of law. 9. The matter seems to have been sent up to the Nizam by the Ecclesiastical Department because on 31-12-1920 he issued the following Firman in pursuance of a petition from that Department - "Pending enquiry of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the land. Therefore, even if it be assumed that the respondent was in possession, his rights to immediate possession, whatever they may have been, were taken away and held in abeyance till he could establish them in the civil Courts. The question now arises whether this enured after the Constitution and whether the respondent's right to possession, assuming he had any, revived when the Constitution came into being. We are clear that the Constitution effected no change. 12. It was conceded that the Nizam had power to confiscate the property and to take it away from the respondent 'in toto' and it was conceded that if he had done so the rights so destroyed would not have revived because the Constitution only guarantees to a cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;, 1953 CriLJ 862 and the law laid down by the majority was this (page 161). "The effect of Article 13(1) of the Constitution is not to obliterate the entire operation of the inconsistent laws or to wipe them out altogether from the statute book; for to do so will be to give them retrospective effect which they do not possess. Such laws must be held to be valid for all past transactions 'and for enforcing rights and liabilities accrued before the advent of the Constitution' ". That, in our opinion concludes the matter. 14. The only question that remains is whether the respondent has obtained a decision in the civil Courts confirming his right to get possession of the Dargah plus whatever else the Ecclesiastical Depart....