‘Refutation of nass on defendant not proved by plaintiffs’
Dwarkadas informed the bench that the alleged conspiracy against the original plaintiff, as per his plaint, started in 1960. The plaint stated that Shehzada Yusuf Najmuddin, the half-brother, felt slighted that Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, though being the eleventh son, was appointed as mazoon in 1965 and hence started conspiring against him
MUMBAI: On the penultimate day of the final hearing in the Syedna succession case, Janak Dwarkadas, counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, refuted the allegations of a conspiracy by the original plaintiff’s brothers and nephews to keep him away from succeeding the 52nd Dai.
The counsel submitted that the original plaintiff had resorted to the conspiracy theory concoction to sustain both his claim of secrecy regarding the 1965 nass conferred on him as well as his refutation of the four nass in 1969, 2005 and twice in 2011 on the defendant. No corroborative evidence or witnesses were brought to prove that a conspiracy existed.
Dwarkadas informed the bench that the alleged conspiracy against the original plaintiff, as per his plaint, started in 1960. The plaint stated that Shehzada Yusuf Najmuddin, the half-brother, felt slighted that Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, though being the eleventh son, was appointed as mazoon in 1965 and hence started conspiring against him. The scheming, according to the plaintiff, continued till the demise of Najmuddin and was later continued by the defendant and his brothers.
The senior counsel submitted that the conspiracy theory was refuted by defence witness Shehzada Malekul Ashtar. He also raised a question: if the defendant and his brothers were part of Najmuddin’s conspiracy, why did they call the plaintiff Maula till 1989 and then stop abruptly? If the conspiracy theory collapsed, the entire claim of the secret 1965 nass and the refutation of the nass on the defendant would collapse, said Dwarkadas.
Referring to the plaintiff’s claim that the 1965 nass was a secret, Dwarkadas submitted that if that was the case the plaint said otherwise. The plaint cites instances of people of higher knowledge and the defendant understanding that the original plaintiff was appointed as mansoos, thus there was no secrecy involved.
Dwarkadas, referring to the decision of the original plaintiff to ostensibly leave the country before June 20, 2011 to avoid forced acceptance of the defendant’s appointment as successor and the claim of the plaintiff that the 52nd Dai was infirm and incapable of conferring a nass on the defendant, submitted that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, but they had failed to prove it. On the other hand, he said, voluminous proof of the four nass on the defendant had been placed, and hence there was no doubt of a valid nass on him.
