‘51st Dai’s letter direct evidence of original plaintiff’s appointment’
MUMBAI: Responding to queries by the Bombay high court on what evidence there was to prove that the 1965 nass was valid, the plaintiff in the Syedna succession case on Thursday submitted that apart from the 51st Dai giving indications of the original plaintiff being elevated to the position of 53rd Dai, the defendant and his brothers had also started doing acts of reverence to Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin after December 10, 1965
MUMBAI: Responding to queries by the Bombay high court on what evidence there was to prove that the 1965 nass was valid, the plaintiff in the Syedna succession case on Thursday submitted that apart from the 51st Dai giving indications of the original plaintiff being elevated to the position of 53rd Dai, the defendant and his brothers had also started doing acts of reverence to Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin after December 10, 1965.
However, the court was not satisfied and sought to know why witnesses were not called upon to confirm that after December 10, 1965, the reverential acts towards the original plaintiff were not merely because of his elevation to the rank of mazoon (second in command) but also to mansoos (nominated successor).
On the 37th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession case, senior advocate Anand Desai for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, in his rejoinder to the defendant’s arguments that nass had not been conferred on Syedna Qutbuddin on December 10, 1965, informed Justice Gautam Patel that the behavioral change in men of higher learning and family members towards the original plaintiff Syedna Qutbuddin proved otherwise.
Desai submitted that after the original plaintiff was made mazoon, men of higher spiritual learning had understood that he was also the mansoos and hence started doing reverential acts which were only meant for the Dai. The bench was told that even the defendant and his brothers, who were students of Syedna Qutbuddin, had also started doing sajda (prostration) to him after his appointment as mazoon on December 10, 1965.
The senior counsel further drew the attention of the bench to a letter by the 51st Dai in 1960, where he stated that the original plaintiff had the ta’eed (guided assistance) of the secluded Imam which was only available to a Dai or to those in the rank of Dai. This, Desai submitted, was direct evidence of the fact that the original plaintiff was named a Dai even before he was appointed as a mazoon in 1965.
However, Justice Patel noted that there was no evidence of the defendant or anyone stating that after the appointment of the original plaintiff as mazoon, they also understood that he was the mansoos. Justice Patel said that in the absence of such direct evidence, it would be difficult for the original plaintiff’s claim to be corroborated.
Desai responded by stating that the current plaintiff, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, in his examination had stated that after the December 10, 1965 announcement, he, his mother and his sisters had understood that his father would be the next Dai and hence started prostrating before him. However, Justice Patel sought to know why the mother and sisters were not called upon to confirm what the plaintiff had understood and had stated to the court.
