MP High Court dismisses Pataudi family’s petition regarding ownership of Chiklod pond

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): High Court, principle bench, Jabalpur, has dismissed a petition filed by Nawab Pataudi family challenging a Raisen district court order regarding ownership of Chiklod pond.

The petitioners include Sharmila Tagore, her son Saif Ali Khan and daughters Saba Sultan, Soha Ali Khan and Sabiha Sultan. The judgement was delivered on September 9 but it came to light on Tuesday.

As per the High Court order, the petitioners filed the petition aggrieved over the order dated September 1, 2017 passed by additional district Judge (ADJ), Raisen whereby an application by the petitioners against the respondents who include Omprakash Prasad, Pratap Singh Rajaram, Kaluram and seven others including Raisen collector was rejected by the district court in Raisen on the ground that the Pataudi family failed to produce any evidence regarding their charges that the respondents had produced forged documents.

Advocate Rajesh Pancholi, counsel for Pataudi family, in his submission in the high court said that the pond in question was given to the respondents for the purposes of fishing and also for cultivation of chestnut and no lease was ever given to them by anyone.

Justice Vivek Agrawal of high court observed, “Thus, it is evident that only minor contradictions as to whom the lessee and whether the lease was executed under the leave authority of the owner and possessor of the pond or not, is a matter of evidence. I am in agreement with the learned Trial Court Judge that the application filed by the petitioner is premature.”

The court said, “Liberty is granted to the Pataudi family to move another application under section 45 of Evidence Act at an appropriate time. That means that even dismissal of this application will not be treated as res-judicata when a fresh application is filed after plaintiff leads evidence and defendant exhibits the so-called lease deed in support of their case.”

Dismissing the petition the court said there was no illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this court.

Published on: Tuesday, September 13, 2022, 11:37 PM IST