Syedna succession case: In 1988, defendant addressed plaintiff as the future Dai
MUMBAI: The counsel for the plaintiff while responding to the claims of the defendant that the silence by original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbudin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai about the nass conferred on him indicated that no nass was conferred in 1965 was invalid
MUMBAI: The counsel for the plaintiff while responding to the claims of the defendant that the silence by original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbudin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai about the nass conferred on him indicated that no nass was conferred in 1965 was invalid.
Senior counsel Anand Deai informed the bench that there were instances on record to show that the defendant himself had accepted the original plaintiff as the next Dai in 1988 when he was married to Syedna Qutbuddin’s daughter. However, the atmosphere changed thereafter due to the jealousy of a brother of the 52nd Dai which was prevalent since 1961.
The bench was further informed that due to the oath of secrecy and the atmosphere following the ill-health of the 52nd Dai from June 2011, the original plaintiff did not disclose about the 1965 nass nor could get the ailing leader to clarify to the community about the nass he had conferred in 1965.
On the 38th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession case, Desai continued the rejoinder to the arguments of the defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddins counsel which had been placed before the bench of justice Gautam Patel in December last year.
While responding to the claim of the defendant that the indicators relied upon to show that people understood that the original plaintiff had been conferred nass of succession were no conclusive, Desai placed before the justice Patel the words that were said by the defendant during his marriage in 1988.
Desai cited the recordings of the marriage wherein the defendant was heard describing his father-in-law Syedna Qutbuddin as ‘branch of the tree of the auspicious Dai Mutlaqs,’ ‘the best of the hudud of the trusted Dai of Allah’ and ‘Mountain of truthfulness and conviction.’ The senior counsel informed the bench that these statements showed that the defendant believed Syedna Qutbuddin was the mansoos and moreso he did not dispute the evidence when it was placed before the court.
Desai also informed the bench that the claim of the defendant that the reverential acts towards the original plaintiff after December 10, 1965 was because he was chosen as mazoon could not be held valid as the acts were specifically for the Dai or the Dai to be. Desai submitted that the change in behavior of the defendant and his brothers happened after the Kenya incident in 1988 only because of the jealousy of the brother of the 52nd Dai since 1961.
The bench was also informed that even after the alleged nass conferred on the defendant in June, 2011, the original plaintiff had kept away from programmes and events involving the defendant which included the June 20, 2011 event, lest it be perceived that he (original plaintiff) had accepted the defendant as the mansoos. This Desai submitted was proved by various documents placed before the curt during the trial and hence the defendant’s contrary claim was disproved.
Lastly, Desai submitted that the silence of Syedna Qutbuddin were in line with the silence adopted by the 13th Imam as he had also been sworn to secrecy about his appointment by the preceding Imam. The senior counsel submitted that just as the 13th Imam was maligned, the original plaintiff also faced a similar situation after 1988 but kept silent as per the directions of the 52nd Dai.
