Introduction:
In a matter steeped in history, heritage, and high-value property, the Supreme Court on August 8, 2025, granted an interim stay on a remand order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a long-standing dispute over the private estate of Nawab Hamidullah Khan—the last ruler of the erstwhile princely state of Bhopal and ancestor of actor Saif Ali Khan. The dispute, pending for over five decades, involves claims by various heirs to the Nawab’s personal property. The case—SLP(C) No. 21981-21982/2025, Diary No. 42592/2025, Omar Faruq Ali v. Sharmila Tagore—was brought before a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar by petitioners Omar and Raashid Ali, heirs of the Nawab’s elder brother, challenging the High Court’s June 30, 2025 order. The HC had set aside the trial court’s 2000 judgment—which upheld the exclusive right of Sajida Sultan (the Nawab’s daughter), her son Mansoor Ali Khan, and his heirs, including Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan, and Sharmila Tagore, to inherit the estate—and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication. This remand, the petitioners argued, was unwarranted under the Civil Procedure Code and ignored the fact that the legal position now supports their stand. The Supreme Court’s intervention effectively pauses the reopening of evidence in the case, pending its further examination.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat, mounted a strong challenge to the High Court’s remand order, contending that it was contrary to the provisions of Order XLI Rules 23 to 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). According to them, a remand can be ordered only in limited situations—either when a case has been disposed of on a preliminary point without a full trial (Rule 23), or where the appellate court frames new issues requiring further evidence (Rules 23A and 25). In the present case, the trial court had already conducted a full trial and passed a detailed judgment on February 14, 2000. Both sides had been heard in full, and there was no request from either the plaintiffs or the defendants for the introduction of fresh evidence. Kamat argued that after 50 years of litigation, it was legally impermissible for the appellate court to send the matter back to square one without a valid reason.
The petitioners highlighted that the High Court itself acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (2019), had accepted the very legal position the plaintiffs in this case had been asserting—that succession to personal property of a ruler must be decided as per personal law and not by the rule of primogeniture. According to the petitioners, if this principle is applied, it benefits them, as it would mean the Nawab’s personal estate should be divided among all legal heirs, including their side of the family. Given this acknowledgment by the High Court, the petitioners argued there was no reason to reopen evidence, as the trial court could simply apply the updated law to the existing record and render a decision. Kamat stressed that the High Court’s reliance on Order 14 Rule 23A CPC was misplaced, as that provision allows a remand only when the trial court has disposed of a case on a preliminary point and the appellate court considers it necessary to have a retrial. That was not the situation here, making the remand legally unsustainable.
The petitioners also underlined the sheer passage of time—over half a century since the Nawab’s death in 1960—and the injustice that would be caused to the litigants by prolonging the matter further. They asserted that the law requires finality in litigation and that this case, given its age, deserved a decisive ruling rather than a procedural restart.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Although the Supreme Court did not hear the respondents in full before issuing its interim stay, the background of the litigation provides insight into their likely arguments. The respondents—heirs of Sajida Sultan—have consistently maintained that the Nawab’s estate was inherited by Sajida Sultan under the rule of primogeniture, a principle whereby the eldest child (historically the eldest son, but here the eldest daughter as declared ruler) inherits the entirety of a ruler’s property, including both official and personal assets. They relied on the fact that after Nawab Hamidullah Khan’s death in 1960, Sajida Sultan was officially declared the Ruler of Bhopal by the Government of India. Further, a 1962 letter from the Government stated that under Article 366(22) of the Constitution, the Nawab’s personal property vested in Sajida Sultan as the successor ruler.
The respondents have also argued that the plaintiffs never challenged the 1962 succession certificate, which had remained unaltered for decades. This, in their view, indicated acquiescence to Sajida Sultan’s succession to both the Gaddi and the private estate. On procedural grounds, they may support the High Court’s remand order by asserting that the trial court’s reliance on a 1997 Allahabad High Court judgment—which was later overturned—tainted the original decision, and that a fresh trial with updated legal framing would ensure justice is done. The respondents might also contend that the complexity of the succession issues, intertwined with constitutional and personal law interpretations, justifies a thorough re-examination of the evidence.
Court’s Judgment:
After a brief hearing on August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar found the petitioners’ submissions sufficient to warrant an interim intervention. Without delving into the merits of the property claims themselves, the Court focused on the procedural legality of the High Court’s remand order. The bench appeared persuaded that a remand after such prolonged litigation—without a request from either party and in the absence of a genuine need to lead additional evidence—was a matter requiring closer scrutiny.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, calling upon them to answer the petitioners’ challenge, and granted an interim stay on the operation of the High Court’s June 30, 2025 remand order. This stay effectively halts the case from being sent back to the trial court for a fresh adjudication, preserving the status quo until the apex court decides on the legality of the remand.
The Court’s intervention is significant for two reasons. First, it prevents a procedural restart of a case that has already consumed decades, thereby avoiding further delay in resolving a historically and financially significant dispute. Second, it signals that appellate courts must exercise caution when using their remand powers, especially in cases where finality is overdue and the legal principles have already been clarified by the Supreme Court.
The matter will now proceed before the Supreme Court, where the central question will be whether the High Court’s remand complies with the CPC’s framework and whether justice in this unique case is better served by deciding the appeal on the existing record rather than reopening the trial process.