{"id":92760,"date":"2007-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-02-22T11:39:40","modified_gmt":"2015-02-22T06:09:40","slug":"begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1921 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nBEGUM SABIHA SULTAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNAWAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nTARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1921      OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP(C) No.4586 of 2006)<\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe appellant, hereinafter referred to as the
\nplaintiff, is the daughter of Nawab Iftikar Ali Khan and Mehar
\nTaj Sajeda Sultan.  Defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents
\n1 and 2 herein, are her siblings.  Defendant No.3 is her niece,
\nbeing the daughter of her brother, Defendant No.1.  Defendant
\nNos.4 and 5 are assignees from Defendant No.2.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe plaintiff filed a suit C.S. (OS) No.495 of 2004 on
\nthe original side of the High Court of Delhi praying for the
\nfollowing reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tPass a decree of declaration declaring the
\noral Will dated 1.1.1995 allegedly made by Her
\nHighness Begum Mehar Taj Sajida Sultan was
\nnever made, further declare that the Sale deed
\npurported to have been executed on behalf of
\nDefendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.4
\nand 5 as null and void;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tto pass a decree of partition in favour of
\nthe plaintiff in respect of her entitled share in
\nview of the Islamic Personal Law i.e. < of total
\nproperties\/estates, out of 180 Kanals and 12
\nMorlas situated at Village Pataudi, Gurgaon
\nleft behind by above mentioned Her Highness
\nMehar Taj Sajida Sultan;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tPass a decree of rendition of account in
\nrespect of the earnings of the above mentioned
\nproperties w.e.f. June, 2000 uptill filing of the
\npresent suit;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tPass a decree of permanent injunction
\nrestraining the Defendants, their employees,
\nservants whosoever acting on their behalf from
\nusing, alienating, parting with possession
\nand\/or dealing with in any manner whatsoever
\nin respect of the respective shares of the
\nplaintiff;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tPass an order for cost of the suit; and<\/p>\n
(f)\tPass any other and further orders as this
\nHon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper.”\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe immovable properties that were sought to be
\npartitioned and alienation in respect of which was sought to be
\ndeclared void, were admittedly situate in Village Pataudi,
\nGurgaon in the State of Haryana, outside the jurisdiction of
\nthe Court in which the suit was instituted.  The suit was filed
\nin the Court at Delhi on the basis of the following averments in
\nthe plaint:\n<\/p>\n
“The cause of action for filing the present suit
\narose on 1.1.1995 when the alleged oral Will
\nwas made by Her Highness Mehar Taj Begum
\nSajida Sultan at New Delhi, the cause of action
\narose on 25.9.1995 when Defendant No.1
\norganised a meeting.  It again arose
\nsomewhere in March\/April when the plaintiff
\ngot knowledge and on 22.10.2002 when the
\nplaintiff issued legal notice.  It further arose on
\n28.11.2002 and 30.11.2002 when the notices
\nwere replied and the same still subsists.\n<\/p>\n
That Defendant No.1 and 2 reside at Delhi.
\nThe cause of action arose at Delhi, as
\naccording to Defendants themselves alleged
\noral Will was made at New Delhi; threats of
\nparting with the possession was also issued at
\nDelhi hence this Hon’ble court has jurisdiction
\nto entertain and try the present suit.”\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe defendants raised an objection to the
\njurisdiction of the trial court.   They pleaded that the main
\nrelief sought in the plaint was for partition of the properties
\nsituate in Gurgaon, not falling within the jurisdiction of Delhi
\ncourt and the declarations sought for are also related to the
\nsaid properties and in the light of Section 16(b)and (d) of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), the jurisdiction
\nto entertain the suit was with the concerned court in the State
\nof Haryana and hence the plaint was liable to be rejected.   On
\ntheir behalf, the following averment in paragraph 3(d) of the
\nplaint was emphasised.\n<\/p>\n
“Present suit is being confined to the
\nproperties situate at Village Patudi, Gurgaon
\n(Haryana), left behind by the mother who had
\npurchased these properties.  So far as the
\nother properties either left behind by their
\nmother, father or other relatives are
\nconcerned, the Plaintiff is reserving her
\nvaluable rights to claim in due course, if need
\nbe.”\n<\/p>\n
The description of the suit properties set out in paragraph 3(h)
\nwas also relied on.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tOn behalf of the plaintiff, this plea was resisted by
\ncontending that the first declaration regarding the alleged oral
\nWill of the mother wholly arose within the jurisdiction of the
\ncourt at Delhi and since that part of the prayer fell within the
\njurisdiction of the court at Delhi, the court at Delhi had
\njurisdiction to entertain the suit.  It was contended that the
\ncause of action regarding the will and the declaration sought
\nin respect thereof, wholly arose in Delhi and that even
\notherwise, three of the defendants were residing in Delhi,
\nwithin the jurisdiction of the court at Delhi and, in any event,
\non that ground and on the ground that a part of the cause of
\naction arose in Delhi, the suit could be entertained in the
\ncourt at Delhi in terms of Section 20 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe learned Single Judge, the trial Judge, on a
\nreading of the plaint, came to the conclusion that the reliefs
\nclaimed in the plaint fell within the purview of Section 16(b)
\nand (d) of the Code and that the proviso to Section 16 had no
\napplication.   Section 20 could not be resorted to, since
\nSection 16 had application and Section 20 applied only if
\nSection 16 had no application.  Overruling the contention that
\nthe first part of the declaratory relief was rightly claimed in the
\ncourt at Delhi, he held that the said declaration was also
\nrelated to the properties situated in village Pataudi, outside
\nthe jurisdiction of the court at Delhi and hence the court at
\nDelhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  The trial judge,
\ntherefore, directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for
\nbeing presented to the court having jurisdiction.  An offer
\nmade to the plaintiff to pass an order in terms of Rule 10A of
\nOrder VII of the Code was not accepted by the plaintiff.  Thus,
\nthe plaint was returned to the plaintiff for being presented to
\nthe proper court.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe plaintiff filed an appeal against the order before
\nthe Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division Bench, on
\nadverting to Section 16 of Code and the approach of the trial
\njudge to the question, agreed with the trial judge and
\ndismissed the appeal.  The Division Bench reiterated that the
\nsuit was essentially and in substance for partition and since
\nthe property lay beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, the
\nsuit could not be brought within the jurisdiction of the trial
\ncourt by exhibiting some ingenuity in introducing a plea
\nregarding an alleged oral Will said to have been brought into
\nexistence in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the court.   The
\nplaint had to be scrutinised for the real relief sought for
\ntherein and so viewed, the trial judge was right in returning
\nthe plaint for presentation to the proper court.  This decision
\nof the Division Bench is in challenge before us.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned counsel for the appellant contended that
\nthe substantial prayer in the plaint was for a declaration that
\nthe oral Will dated 1.1.1995 allegedly made by the mother
\nSajida Sultan was never made and the cause of action for that
\nrelief wholly arose in Delhi within the jurisdiction of the trial
\ncourt.  He submitted that the other reliefs of partition,
\naccounting and declaration of invalidity of the sale executed by
\nDefendant No.2 were all reliefs that would flow only if the relief
\nregarding the declaration of Will was granted to the plaintiff
\nand consequently, those reliefs could be perceived to be only
\nconsequential reliefs.  Counsel also pointed out that even if
\nSection 16(a) and (d) of the Code had application, it was a case
\nto which the proviso to Section 16 of the Code applied,
\nespecially in the context of the fact that at least three of the
\ndefendants were residing within the jurisdiction of the trial
\ncourt.  It was, therefore, contended that the decision to return
\nthe plaint was unsustainable in law.  Counsel for the
\ndefendants, on the other hand, contended that in pith and
\nsubstance, the plaint was for partition of the properties situate
\nin village Pataudi in Gurgaon that lay outside the territorial
\njurisdiction of the court at Delhi and when that is so, the suit
\nhad to be instituted only in the court having jurisdiction over
\nthe property in question and the High Court was right in
\nholding that Section 16(b) and (d) of the Code squarely applied
\nto the case on hand in the light of the releifs claimed.  Counsel
\nfurther submitted that the proviso to Section 16 of the Code
\nhad no application, since this was not a case where mere
\npersonal obedience to the decree would result in an effective
\ndecree.  He further pointed out that Section 20 of the Code will
\nhave no application in a case where Section 16 squarely
\napplies, since Section 20 was only a residuary provision.  He
\nultimately submitted that the High Court has understood the
\nplaint in a particular manner and since an effective decree for
\npartition, which is the main relief claimed in the plaint, could
\nmore conveniently be passed by the court having jurisdiction
\nover the properties in question, it was not a fit case where this
\nCourt ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution of India, since having the suit tried at Delhi
\nwould only create complications and prolong the proceedings,
\neven assuming that this Court saw some merit in the
\ncontention that the first part of prayer (a) might come within
\nthe purview of the court at Delhi.  He therefore submitted that
\nno interference be made with the order now passed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThere is no doubt that at the stage of consideration
\nof the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code,
\nwhat is to be looked into is the plaint and the averments
\ntherein.   At the same time, it is also necessary to read the
\nplaint in a meaningful manner to find out the real intention
\nbehind the suit.  In Messrs Moolji Jaitha & Co. Vs. The
\nKhandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. [A.I.R. 1950
\nFederal Court 83], the Federal Court observed that:
\n“The nature of the suit and its purpose have to
\nbe determined by reading the plaint as a
\nwhole.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further observed:\n<\/p>\n
“The inclusion or absence of a prayer is not
\ndecisive of the true nature of the suit, nor is
\nthe order in which the prayers are arrayed in
\nthe plaint.  The substance or object of the suit
\nhas to be gathered from the averments made
\nin the plaint and on which the reliefs asked in
\nthe prayers are based.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further observed:\n<\/p>\n
“It must be borne in mind that the function of
\na pleading is only to state material facts and it
\nis for the court to determine the legal result of
\nthose facts and to mould the relief in
\naccordance with that result.”\n<\/p>\n
 This position was reiterated by this Court in T.
\nArivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. [(1978) 1 S.C.R.
\n742] by stating that what was called for was a meaningful  —
\nnot formal — reading of the plaint and any illusion created by
\nclever drafting of the plaint should be buried then and there.
\nIn Official Trustee, West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sachindra Nath
\nChatterjee & Anr. [(1969) 3 S.C.R. 92], this Court approving
\nthe statement of the law by Mukherjee Acting Chief Justice in
\nHirday Nath Roy Vs. Ramchandra Barna Sarma, [I.L.R. 48
\nCalcutta 138 F.B.] held:\n<\/p>\n
“Before a court can be held to have jurisdiction
\nto decide a particular matter it must not only
\nhave jurisdiction to try the suit brought but
\nmust also have the authority to pass the
\norders sought for. It is not sufficient that it has
\nsome jurisdiction in relation to the subject-
\nmatter of the suit.  Its jurisdiction must
\ninclude the power to hear and decide the
\nquestions at issue, the authority to hear and
\ndecide the particular controversy that has
\narisen between the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tReading the plaint as a whole in this case, there
\ncannot be much doubt that the suit is essentially in relation to
\nthe relief of partition and declaration in respect of the
\nproperties situate in Village Pataudi, Gurgaon, outside the
\njurisdiction of court at Delhi.  It is no doubt true that there is
\nan averment that an alleged oral will said to have been made
\nat Delhi by the deceased mother and presumably relied on by
\ndefendants 1 and 2 was never made.  But on our part, we fail
\nto understand the need for claiming such a negative
\ndeclaration.  After all, the plaintiff can sue for partition,
\nrendition of accounts and for setting aside the alienation
\neffected by defendant No. 2 without the junction of the plaintiff
\non a claim that the plaintiff is also one of the heirs of the
\ndeceased mother.  If in such a suit, the defendants propound
\nany oral will as excluding the plaintiff from inheritance, the
\nburden would be on them to establish the making of such an
\noral will and the validity thereof.  The negative declaration
\nsought for by the plaintiff appears to us to be totally
\nsuperfluous and unnecessary in the circumstances of the
\ncase.  It may be noted that it is not the case of the plaintiff
\nthat an oral will was made at Delhi.  It is the case of the
\nplaintiff that no oral will was made at Delhi.  It is debatable
\nwhether in such a situation it can be said that any cause of
\naction arose at all within the jurisdiction of the court at Delhi.
\nOn a reading of the plaint, the trial judge and the Division
\nBench have come to the conclusion that in substance the suit
\nwas one relating to immovable property situate outside the
\njurisdiction of the trial court in Delhi and hence the plaint had
\nbeen presented in a court having no jurisdiction to entertain
\nthe suit.  We are inclined to agree with the said understanding
\nof the plaint by the trial judge and Division Bench, on a
\nreading of the plaint as a whole.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tOn a reading of the plaint as a whole, it is clear, as
\nwe have indicated above, that the suit is one which comes
\nwithin the purview of Section 16(b) and (d) of the Code.  If a
\nsuit comes within Section 16 of the Code, it has been held by
\nthis Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal
\nLtd. & Anr. [(2005) 7 S.C.C. 791] that Section 20 of the Code
\ncannot have application in view of the opening words of
\nSection 20 “subject to the limitations aforesaid”. This Court
\nhas also held that the proviso to Section 16 would apply only if
\nthe relief sought could entirely be obtained by personal
\nobedience of the defendant.  The relief of partition, accounting
\nand declaration of invalidity of the sale executed in respect of
\nimmovable property situate in Village Pataudi, Gurgaon, could
\nnot entirely be obtained by a personal obedience to the decree
\nby the defendants in the suit.  We are in respectful agreement
\nwith the view expressed in the above decision. Applying the
\ntest laid down therein, it is clear that the present suit could
\nnot be brought within the purview of the proviso to Section 16
\nof the Code or entertained relying on Section 20 of the Code on
\nthe basis that three out of the five defendants are residing
\nwithin the jurisdiction of the court at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the trial
\ncourt was right in returning the plaint to the plaintiff for being
\npresented to the proper court.  We therefore affirm the order
\nreturning the plaint and dismiss this appeal.  In the
\ncircumstances, we make no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1921 of 2007 PETITIONER: BEGUM SABIHA SULTAN RESPONDENT: NAWAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2007 BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBegum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2649,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007"},"wordCount":2649,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007","name":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T06:09:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begum-sabiha-sultan-vs-nawab-mohd-mansur-ali-khan-ors-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Begum Sabiha Sultan vs Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan & Ors on 12 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}