AMEERUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS versus MAHBOOB BEGUM AND OTHERS

-\ . ' "

AMEERUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS • v .

MAHBOOB BEGUM AND 01'HERS.

(PATANJALI SASTHI 0.J., MUKHEHJEA, 0HANDHA·

SEKHARA AIYAR, BosE and GHULAM HASAN J.J.]

Waliuddowla Succession Act, 1950-Act pl'ovidina for settl~­n&ent of dispu,tes as to succession. between 1Jrivate versons and pro~ hibiting recourse to coitrts of law.-Validity-Equality of the law-Discriniination-Rea.sonableness-Constitution of India., 1950, Art. 14 (1).

The continuance of a. dispute even for long period of time between two sets of rival claimants to the property of ar-private TJBrson is not circum'stance of such unusual nature as would in-vest case with special or exceptional features and make it rt class by itself justifying its differentiation fro1u all other cases of suc-cession disputes, and the fact that non-judicial authority had made report against one set of the claimants is not reasonable ·ground for depriving thein by legislation of their ordinary rights under the law and prohibiting the1n Iron1 having resort to courts' of law for establishing their rights.·

nobleman of J{yderllhitfl died in 1935 \Yhen it \Vas under the rule of the N izam, and disputes as to succession a.rose betwe_en his legally married wife and two ladies, j\fahbooh Begum ·and i{adiran Begum, \Vho claimed to he his \Vives. After pro-tracted proceedings before several non-judicial bodies report a.dverse· to.the latter· was made in January, 1950, but before the · Nizam could issue firman in accordance 'Vi-'ith it, Hyderabad be-came part ol the Indian Union and the Coustitution of India .came into force. An enact1nent called the VValiuddowla Succes-. sion Act, 1950, w"s therefore- passed by tho Hyderabad Legisla-ture which providecl that ''the claiins of }dahboob Begu1n and Kadiran Begum and of their respecLive children to participate in the distribution of the matrooka of the late N awab are hereby dismissed" and that the above decision "cannot be called in question in a.ny court of law":

Held, that in sin'gling out two groups of persons consisting of t,wo ladies and their children out of those Who claimed to be related to the late N awab and preventing them from establishing their rights under the personal la\\' which governed the community, in Courts of law, the Act was discriminatory; that there ¥:as no rational or reasonable ba,sis for the discrimination, and tlle Act contravened the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and was therefore void. The analogy of private Acts of the British

S.C. R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS

Parliament is not helpful as the British Parliament enjoys legis-lative omnipotence and there are no constitutional limitations on its authority or power.

A•neerunnissa an!ei:,~;,.

CIVIL APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Appeal an!ei:,~;,. No. 63 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and v. Order dated 7th November, 1950, of the High Court Mahboob Begum of Judicature at Hyderabad (Siddique, Rao and and Oth1rs. Deshpande JJ.) in Civil Case No. 9-A-5-1 of 1950.

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 0. K. Daphtary,.Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi and Ghulam Ahmad Khan, with them) for the appel-lants.

B. Somayya and Akbar Ali Khan (B. V. Subharayitdu, with them) for the respondents.

1952. December 9. 'rhe J udgmeut of the Court was delivered by

MUKHER.TEA J.-This appeal which has come before us on certificate granted by the High Court of Hyderaba.d under article 132 (1) of the Constitu" ' tion is directed against judgment of Full Bench I of that Court date~ November 7, 1950, passed on petition under article '.3'.rB- of ·the- Constitution. By this judgment the learned Judges of the High Court declared an Act, known as the W aliuddowla Succession Act of 1950, void under article 13(2) of the Constitu-tion to the extent that it affected the rights of the present respondents l to 12 who were the petitioners in the· article 226 proceeding. 'rhe object of the im-pugned Act, which received the assent of H.E.H. the Nizam as Rajpramukh of Hyderabad on April 24, 1950, was to put an end to the disputes that existed at the, time regarding succession to the matrooka or personal estate of N awab Waliuddowla, wealthy nobleman and high dignitary of Hyderabad, and what, in substr.i.nce, the Act provided was to dismiss the claims of succession to the said properties put torward by two of the alleged wives of the late Nawab, named Mahboob Begum and Kadiran Begum, and vheir children. These ~WO ladies as well ~s ~h~ir

1952 children filed petition before the Hyderabad High Am,.runnissa Court under article 226 of the Constitution challeng-Begum ing the validity of the Act mentioned aforesaid inter and Others alia on the grounds that it conflicted with the peti-v. tioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under articles Mahboob Beguml4, 19(l)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution and pray-. and Others. ing for appropriate reliefs by way of declaration and Mukherjea J. writs of certiorari and prohibition. The claim was resisted by Ameerunnissa Begum, an admitted wife of the late Nawab, and her children, and they are the persons who would primarily be benefited by the provisions of the impugned Act. The _High Court •substantially accepted the contentions of the peti-tioners and declared the Act to be void so far as it affected them. Against this decision the present appeal has been taken to this court by Ameerunnissa Begum and her children.

To appreciate the contentions that have been raised by the parties, brief resume of the antecedent events leading np to the passing of the disputed legislation would be necessary.

Nawab Waliuddowla, who was one of the Paigah noblemen of Hyderabad and was at one time the President of the Executive Council of the State, died at Medina on February 22, 1935, while on pilgrim-age to Hedjaz. Besides extensive jagir ·properties appertaining to the Paigah which fetched him an annual income of nearly Rs. 1,36,000 he left behind hi!ll matrooka or personal estate of considerable value. As regards the surviving relations of. the N awab, who could claim rights by inheritance to his estate, it is not disputed that Ameerunnissa Begum was.one of the legally wedded wives of the N awab and that she and the five children which the Nawab had by her -are en-titled to their legitimate shares in the properties left by the deceased. There is also no dispute that the N awab went through legal marriage with lady named Fatima Begum who is still alive. It appears, however, that she left her husband soon after marriage and did not return to him any time thereafter. During the period, which is material for our present purpose, the

only claim which she put forward against the estate of

the Nawab was one for recovery of her dower debt Alneerunnissa between amounting the to parties to one lakh this of rupees. litigation The really whole dispute center0ed and Begum Other• round the point as to whether the other two ladies, v. namely Mahoob Begum and Kadiran Begum, who are Mahbaab Begum respectively respondents 1 and 5 in this appeal, were and Others, the lawfully married wives of the late Nawab or were Mukherjea J, they merely in his keeping as kavases or permanent concubines? If there was no legal marriage between them and the N awab, it is not disputed that their children, though admittedly begotten on them by the N awab, would not be entitled to any share in the matrooka or personal estate left by the deceased.

This dispute first arose before the Paig_ah Trust Committee whose duty it was to distribute the income of the Paigah estate amongst the heirs of the late N awab. In April, 1935, shoi:.tly after Ameerunnissa Begum, who had accompanied her husband to Mecca, returned to Hyderabad after the death of the latter, the Committee addressed letters to Ameerunnissa Begum, Fatima Begum and also to Mahboob Begum enquiring about the wives and children left by the N awalr. No letter, it seems, was sent to Kadiran Bi. On consideration of the replies given by the several addressees and also of the statements made on their behalf at the hearings before the Committee, the latter submitted report to the Executive Council of the Nizam. '11he Paigah Committee proceeded on the footing that the Nawab's marriage with Ameerunnissa Begum was beyond dispute, but as Mahboob Begum did not produce her marriage certificate even. after repeated demands by the Committee, she as well as Kadiran Bi were treated as concubines. The Commit-tee recommended that the annual income of the Paigah should be divid~d in the proportion of 60 to 40 amongst the legitimate and illegitimate relations of the Nawab. 60% of the income was to go to Ameerun-\ll~l;a, Begum and her issues and the remaining 40% was to be paid to Mahboob and Kadira,n ais well as to

their children. These recommendations were approv-ed by the Nizam in Firman dated 9th July, 1936.

Atneerunn-i~sa

Begum Previous to this, express intimations were give'n to .,.a Others Others tlie surviving relations of Waliuddowla under orders v. of the Nizam that whatever disputes might exist .,,a Others. Others. Begum among th em regar rng t d' em~ t roo1ca 7 or persona estate 1 of the N awab, should be decided by proper proceed-Mukherjea J. ings in court of la,w and pending such decision the estate might be kept under the supervision of the Paigah Committee. On the 8th February, 1938, Mahboob Begum and her children filed suit in the Dar-ul-Quaza, which was court established under the law for deciding rights of succession, marriage, divorce etc. of the Muslims in the Hyderabad State, praying for declaration that Mah boob Begum was the legally married wife of the Nawab and the children were his legitimate children and for other consequen-tial reliefs in the shape of participation in the mat-rooka and recovery of tlie dower debt payable to Mah-l:>0ob Begum. Both Ameerunnissa Begum and Kadiran Bibi as well as their children were among the defend-ants impleaded in the suit. During the pendency of the suit and before it came on for actual hearing, . there was Firman issued by the Nizam on the 9th February, 1937, on the application of Ameerunnissa Begum, directing the withdrawal of the suit from the Dar-ul-Quaza court and the appointment of Special Commission consisting of Nawab Jiwan Yar Juug, the then Chief Justice of Hyderabad and the Judge of Dar-ul-Quaza before whom the suit was pending, to investigate the matter and submit report to the Nizam through the Executive Council.

Begum .,.a Others Others v. Afahboob Begum .,,a Others. Others.

Proceedings before the Special Commission commenced on 27th March, 1939. Kadiran Bibi filed plaint before the Commissiop. claiming on behalf of herself and her children the identical reliefs which were claimed by Mah boob Begum and her children, and though this plaint was at first rejected by the Commission it was subsequently entertained under specific orders of the .Executive Council. It appearn that Fatima Bibi also lodged plaint in respect 9f

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT RllJPORTS

her Mahar against the estate of the Nawab and 1952 this matter was also directed to be investigated by . the Commission. 'fhe enquiry before the Commil'-me;;:;;ssa sion was long affair in which large volume of and Others evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced. v. The Commission submitted the report on October 16, Mahboob Begum 1944, and their findings, in substance, were that both and Others. Mah boob Begum and Kadiran Begum were legally Mukherjea J. married wives of ·w aliuddowla and hence they as well as their children were entitled to have their legiti-mate ·shares in the matrooka. Fatima Begum was also held to be legally wedded wife of the Nawab, and as such entitled to the dower claimed by her. When the report came up for consideration by the Executive Council the Members of the Council were divided in their opinion. minority was in favour of accepting the findings of the Commission but the majority view was that further expert opinion should be taken in the matter. Eventually on the advice of the Council the Nizam directed by his Firman dated 27th August, 1945, that the report of the Special Commission should be scrutinised by an Advisory Committee consisting of three persons, namely, two Judges of the High Court and the J.Jegal Adviser of the State. 'rhis Committee was directed to examine fully the bulky report of the Special Commission and submit their opinion with view to assist the Executive Council in coming to their deci-sion. They were not to take any fresh evidence or hear any further arguments from the parties. The Advisory Committee submitted their report on 24th November, 1945, and the Committee held differing from the view taken by the Special Commission that neither Mahboob Begum nor Kadiran Begum was the legally wedded wife of Nawab Waliuddowla. Despite this report, the majority of the Exe cu ti ve Council recommended that the findings of the Special Commission should be accepted. The Nizam accepted this recommendation and by his Firman dated 26th June, 1947, directed that the findings of the Special Commission shonJU be implemented at an early date.

19oe 'l'here was proposal at the beginning that the mem--. bers of the Special Commission themselves should be Ameerunnma Begum as k t.o nnp ement t eir n mgs, . l . fi d. ut eventually 1t . and Others w:ts decided by resolut10n of the Executive Council v. dated 22nd September, 1947, that the task of en-Mahboob Begum forcing the recommendations of the Commission and Others. should be entrusted to the Chief Justice of the Mukherjea J. Hyderabad High Court. It appears that in sub-sequent communications to the Executive Council the Nizam expressed doubt regarding the status of Mahboob Begum and Radiran Begum and suggested the replacement of the Firman of 26th June, 1947, by new orders in the nature of compromise. The Executive Council, however, stuck to their decision and on 17th June, 1948, the findings of the Special Commission were transferred to the Chief Justice for· executing the same as early :w possible. On 2nd July, 1948, another Firman was issued by the Nizam directing that the Chief Justice before making the final distribution of the matrooka should submit his report through the Executive Council to His Exalted Highness for his sanction. This direction was embodied in resolution of the Executive Council dated 2nd September, 1948.The police action in Hyderabad commenced soon after that and it was on 25th September, 1948, after the police action had terminated and Military Governor was placed in charge of the Hyderabad State that formal communication of the resolution mentioned above was made to the Chief Justice. Soon afterwards on the application of Ameerunnissa Begum made to the Military Governor the execution proceedings before the Chief Justice were stayed by an order dated 16th October, 1948. '£his stay order was again cancelled on 5th November, 1948, and the execution proceedings were allowed to continue.· On 5th December, 1948, the Chief Justice submitted his report regarding the distribution of the matrooka to the Executive Council. Strangely, however, by Firman dated 24th February, l\!49, the Nizam pur-porting to act under the advice of the. Military

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Governor directed that the findings of the three-men 196i Advisory Committee, who differed from the views Ameerunnissa taken by the Special Commission, should be given Begum effect to. In other words, the claims of Mah boob and Others Begum and Kadiran Begum were dismissed and v. Ameerunnissa Begum was directed to pay one lakh of Mahboob Begum rupees to Fatima Begum as the dower due to the and Others. latter. Protest was lodged against the decision by Mukherj~a J. Mahboob Begum and Kadiran Begum and again Firman was issued by the Nizam under the advice of the Military Governor on 7th of September, 1949. By this Firman the earlier order of 24th February, 1949, was revoked and the whole case was referred for opinion and report to Sir George Spence, the Legal Adviser to the Military Governor, who was directed to hear the parties and take such further evidence as he considered necessary. The enquiry then began before the Legal Adviser but neither party adduced any evidence. Sir George Spence submitted his report on 7th January, 1950. The material findings and recommendations in his report were as follows:-

" 76. My finding on the case is that neither Mahboob Begum nor Kadiran Begum was married to the N awab with the result that these ladies and their children are not entitled to participate in the distribution of the matrooka.

77. If this finding is accepted, the order required for its implementation would be an order dismissing the claims of Mahboob Begum and Kadiran Begum on ,the matrooka and directing Ameerunnissa Begum to pay one lakh of rupees out of the ma,trooka to Fatima Begum on account of Hag Mahar.''

The Constitution of India came into force on 26th January, 1950. As Hyaerabad was integrated with the Indian Union and the Nizam lost the absolute power which he could exercise previously, it was no longer within his competence to issue Firman on the terms of the report of Bir George Spence and make it legally binding on the parties. Recourse wa~

4J2 SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS

'""" therefore had to legislation and on April 24, 1950, -. this impugned ·Act was passed which purported to meerunntSsa give legislative sanction. to the findings in the Begum and othm rep"ort of Sir George Spence. The material provision v. of the Act is contained in section 2, clause (1), which. Mahboob Begum Jays down that "the claims of Mah boob Begum and and Others. Kadiran Begum and of their respective children to Mukhorjsa J. participate in the distribution of the matrooka of the late N awab Waliuddowla are hereby dismissed". The second clause of this section provides that sum of one lakh of rupees shall be paid to Fatima Begum on account of her Haq Mahar. Under section 3, the decisions affirmed in section 2 cannot be called in question in any court of law and finally section 4 provides that the High Court of Hyderabad shall, on the application of any person interested in the decision affirmed in section 2, execute the said decision as if it were decree passed by itsell and such person was decree-holder. It is this Act which has been pronounced to be invalid· by the High Court of Hyderabad to the extent that it dismisses the claims of Mah boob Begum and Kadiran Begum as well as of their children to the personal estate of N awab Waliuddowla.

It may be conceded that before the coming in of the Co.nstitution, the Ni7'am of Hyderabad practically enjoyed unfettered sovereign authority and however much the various Firmans, which were issued by him in connection with the present dispute, may appear to be capricious and arbitrary, strictly speaking they were not unconstitutional in the sense that they were beyond his competence as the supreme legislature in the State. After the Constitution came into force and prior to the setting up of duly constituted legislature in the Hyderabad State, the legislative authority undoubtedly vested in the N 1zam as the Rajpramukh of the State under the provision of article 385 of the Constitution read with article 212-A (2) inserted by the President's (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. II dated 26th .January, 1950; but the legislative power exercisable by the Nizam was strictly limited power. The Rajpramukh

was not only to act in conformity with the provision w[52 ]of article 246 of the Constitution and keep within Ameerunni~sa tbe bounds of the legislative sphere laid down with Begum reference to the entries, in the different legislative and Othet'S lists, but the legislation must not be in conflict with v. any of. the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part Mahboob Begum III of the Constitution. and Others._

'rhe impugned Act, as its title and preamble show, Mukherjsa J. was passed with the avowed object of terminating the disputes relating to succession to the estate of tbe late N awab Waliuddowala. Although in the report of Sir George Spence it was held that Mafiboob Begum and Kadiran Begum were not the legally wedded wives of the N awab and their children were not legiti-mate, there was no express declaration to that effect in the operative portion of tbe Act which merely lays down that the claims of these two ladies as well as of their children to participate in the distribution of the matrooka of the late Nawab ars dismissed. The legis-lation may be said to relate to succession and indirect-ly to marriage also and as such may come within the purview of entry 5, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It bas not been argued by Mr. Somayya, who appeared for the respondents, that legislation on these topics must be general legisla-tion; but it "has not been disputed by either side that no valid legislation CO!Jld be passed under these heads which is discriminatory in its character and offends against the equal protection clause embodied in article 14 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned Attorney-General is that tbe legislation in the present case does not violate the principles of the -equality clause and be bas attempted to combat with "much force the decision of the High Court on this point. This is the main question in the case which requires to be examined carefully. .

The nature and scope of the guarantee that is implied in the equal protection clause of the Consti-tution have been explained and diE>cussed in more than one decision of this court and do not require repetition. is well settled that le&islature whic)l

1952 has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an -. infinite variety of humau relations must, of necessity, Ameerunmssa k. · 11 t tt · · Begum ave t power o ma mg spec1a a_ws o am part1-and Others cu Tar objects; and for that purpose it must have large v. powers of selection or classification of persons and !fohboob Begumthings upon which such laws are to operate.- Mere and Others. differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per -se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of Mukherjea, J. the equal protection• clause. To attract the opera-tion of the clause it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbit-rary; that it does not rest on any rational basis having r~gard to the object which the legislature has in view.

The learned Attorney-General in the course of his

argument laid considerable stress upon the decision of this court in Chiranjit Lal v. 1'he Union of India(') and he attempted to call in his aid the two pro-positions recognised and relied upon in that decision, · namely, (1) that the presumption is always in favour · of the constitutionality of an enactment, and (2) law may be constitutional even though it relates to single individual, family or corporation. The pro-positions themselves may he well founded but whether or not they would apply to particular. case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In Chiranjit Lal's case('), it is to be noted, the circums-tances were somewhat exceptional. 'fhe legislation in that case related to company which was engaged in production of commodity vitally essential to the community, and in judging the reasonableness of the · classification in such cases the court has undoubtedly to look to the social, political and economic interest of the community as whole. In doing so, as Prof. Willis observed, the court will assume the existence of any state of facts which can reasonably be conceiv-

·1ed of as existing at the time existing at the time at the time the time time of legislation and capable

·1ed of as existing at the time existing at the time at the time the time time l of sustaining the classification made by it(•).

In the case before us what the legislature has done is to single out t.wo groups of persons consisting of two (I) (19~0] S,C.R, ~69. (z) Willis o:q Constitq.tional Law, :p. 580,

S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'r REPOR'rS

ladies and their respective children out of those who 1952 claim to be related to the late N awab \V a.liuddowla A1neerunnissa aud prevent them from getting any share in the per-Beg""' sonal property of the latter to which they might be an<l Others entitled under the general law of the land. They v claim to be wives and children of the deceased and Mahboob Beguni as such entitled to have shares in his personal· estate and Others. and no competent court of law has as yet negatived Mllkherjea J. their claims in this respect. On what principle then, it may be asked, was the disability imposed upon these persons alone while the claim of the other claim-ants was accepted'! Nay, the legislation goes fur-ther than this and denies to these specified individuals right to enforce their claim in court of law, in accordance with the personal law that governs the community to which they belong. They, in fact, have been discriminated against from the rest of the com· munity in respect of valuable right which the law secures to them all and the question is, on what basis this appareB.tly hostile and discriminatory legislation can ·be supported.

It is not suggested that it was for serving public purpose or securing some advantage to the commu· nity as whole that the legislature chose in this case to interfere with private rights. The only purpose of the legislation, as appears from the preamble, was to end certain private disputes. It is true that the quarrel between the two rival parties regarding succession to the estate of the - deceased N awab was going on since 1938; and after several vicissitudes, for which the Nizam himself or his Legal Advisers were prima-rily responsible, there was report prepared by the Legal Adviser to the State in particular way, which, contrary to the opinion given by an earlier Special Commission, negatived the claims of these two ladies and their children. It is also true that because of the introduction of the Constitution it was no longer pos-sible for the Nizam to issue Firman embodying this report. 'l'hat may be the reason for passing this JegiRlation but it would not funiish any rational basis 54

416 SUPREME COUR'f REPOR'fS (1953]

1952 for the discrimination that it made. The continu--. a.nee of dispute even for long period of time bet-AnteornnnM•• · l 1 · Beguin ween two sets o. n va ~1mants tot epropherty o aand Othors private person is not circumstance o sue 1unusua 1 v. nature as would invest case with special or excep-!fahboob Begum tional features and make it class by itself justifying and Oth•rs. its differentiation from all other cases of succession Mukh,,J•a J. disputes. As appears from the preamble to 'he Act, the only ground for depriving the two ladies and their children of the benefits of the ordinary law is the fact that there was an adverse report against them .made by the State Legal Adviser. 'fhis ground is itself arbitrary and unreasonable. 'fhe dispute regarding succession to the estate of the Nawab was legal dis-pute pure and simple and without determination of the points in issue by properly constituted judicial tribunal legislation based upon the report of non-judicial authority and made applicable to specific individuals, who are deprived thereby of valuable rights which are enjoyed by all other persons occupy-ing the same position as themselves, does, in our opinion, plainly come within the constitutional in· hibition of article 14.

'fhe analogy of private Acts of the British Parlia-ment, to which reference was made by the learned Attorney-General in the course of his arguments, is not at all helpful. The British Parliament enjoys legislative omnipotence and there ,are no constitu-tional limitations upon its authority or power. There were indeed few statutes passed by the Provincial Legislature in India during British days which regu-lated succession to the estates of certain princely families. The Bijni Succession Act (Act II of 1931) passed by the Assam Legislature is an enactment of this type and it did shut out the rights of certain persons who claimed the Bijni estate under the law of inheritance. But at that time the Governor-General of India had express authority under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1915, to authorize the Provincial Legislatures to make laws regarding sub-jects of private nature. Quite apart from this, no.

question of infraction of the equal protection rule 1952 could arise in pre-Constitution day, s. We are not Anieerunnissa unmindful of the fact that the presumption is in Begum favour of the constitutionality of an enactment; bi.it and Other• when on the face of it piece of legislation is v, palpably unreasonable and discriminatory and the Mahboob Begu"' selection or classification made by it cannot be and Others. justified on any conceivable or rational ground, the Mukherjea .r. court has got to invalidate the enactment on the ground of its violating the equal protection clause.'fhe learned Attorney-General contended before us that the High Court was wrong in holding that there was concluded decree in the present case in favour of respondents 1 to 12 on the basis of the recom-mendations of the Special Commission, and that this decree was property within the meaning of law of which these respondents have been deprived by the impugned legislation. 'fhe point is not free from doubt, and much could be said on both sides. We think, therefore, that it would not be proper on our part to express any opinion upon it in the present appeal. We understand that the respondents have filed an execution application in the City Civil Court of Hyderabad which has ordered that execution should proceed and that objections have been taken to this application by the present appellants who have raised inter alia the point that there is no final and effective decree which is capable of execution. f...s the point is still pending hearing by the Ci vii Court of Hyderabad, we do not desire to influence their decision in any way by expressing any opinion on this matter. We only desire to state that notwith-standing the observations made by the High Court referred to above, the question shall be treated as an open one .. The applicability of article 14 of the Constitution in the present case" is, however, not at all dependent upon the fact as to whether or not the respondents have already acquired property in the shape of decree. 'fheir claim to the estate of the late Nawab which they wanted to assert under the general law of the land is itself valuable right, and

418 SOPREME COOR'l' REPOR'l'S (19531

1952 the deprivation of that right by piece of discrimi-natory legislation would be sufficient to bring the Ameeruiinissa case wit m t purview of artic 14 of · · · l the Consti-Bagut1i and OthM s tution. v. Having regard to the view that we have taken, it !Iahboob Begum is unnecessary to consider whether the impugned and ot1iccs. legislation violates the provisions of article 31(1) or Mukh.,jea J. article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. 'l'he result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

. Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellants: Rajinder Narain. Agent for respondents Nos. 1 to 12: M. &. K. Sastri.

1952 Dec. 10.

AJMER SINGH

v. 'l'HE STATE OF PUNJAB.

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAG WATI J J.]

Crirninal Procedzire Code, 1898, SS. 842, 417--AJJ1Jeal aaa,inst acquittal-Inte1Jerence-Guidina pri nciple-Cri·minal trio l-Ex-aniina tion of· acciisefl-D·nty of Court-Irregular exam.ination-Valirlity of trial-Question of prejudice.

After an order of a.cqnittal has heon ma.de tho presumption of innocence is further re-inforcocl by that orde1', and that- being so, the trial court's decision cannot be reversed 1nerely on the ground that the accused had failed to expla.in the cil'cumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial and cOn:1pelling reasons. In an appea.1 under s. 487, Criminal Procedure Code, tho High , Court bas full po\ver to revie"v t.he evidence upon 'vhich the ordtir of acquittal \Vas founded .

. The duty of Sessions Judge under s. 342; Criminal Pro· cedure Code, to examine the accused is not discbargitd by merely l'eading over the questions put to the accuB;ed in tbe ,l\Iagistrate's Court and his answers, and by asking hjm whether he bas to say anything about them. It is also not sufficient compliance with the section to generally ask the accused that, having heard the vrosecution evidence what he has to say about it. Re p:iust be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section