In 1948, the then Nizam of Hyderabad had transferred 1,007,940 pounds and nine shillings to the high commissioner in Britain of the newly-formed state of Pakistan.
Hyderabad Nizam’s property: The heirs of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan, have demanded their share in the £35-million fund lying in a bank in the United Kingdom after a court ruled that the money belonged to the Indian government and 7th Nizam.
In its October 2 verdict, the Royal Courts of Justice in London ruled that the “Nizam VII was beneficially entitled to the fund and those claiming in right of Nizam VII – the Princes and India – are entitled to have the sum paid out to their order”. The case had virually become a India-Pakistan clash with the neighbouring country claiming the right over the money.
However, the battle over the huge fortune seems far from over as Nawab Najaf Ali Khan, son of Hashim Jah Bahadur, the fifth son of Mir Osman has now staked claim over the money. Najaf Ali Khan told The Indian Express that he along with others of the clan are ready to approach the court if Mukarram Jah, titular VIIIth Nizam, and his younger brother Muffakham decide against sharing the fund.
“The brothers have not got in touch with us yet, so we don’t know what they are planning. Also, we are waiting (to see) whether Pakistan decides to appeal,” ” Najaf Ali told the newspaper. “The terms and conditions are very clear when the brothers entrusted the case to the Government of India: that if the case is won, the money would be distributed among all descendants and the government. The two brothers cannot take a decision on their own now and cut off the rest,” he added.
In 1948, the then Nizam of Hyderabad had transferred 1,007,940 pounds and nine shillings to the high commissioner in Britain of the newly-formed state of Pakistan. That amount has now grown into 35 million pounds. While Nizam’s heirs claimed the amount belonged to them, Pakistan also claimed the right over it.
Islamabad’s claims, however, were rejected by the UK court. “Pakistan’s contentions of non-justiciability by reason of the foreign act of state doctrine and non-enforceability on grounds of illegality both fail,” the verdict noted.