logo
Can ancestor's migration cost you crores? Saif's property case explains how

Can ancestor's migration cost you crores? Saif's property case explains how

In a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for cross-border inheritance, the Madhya Pradesh High Court last week declared significant portions of Saif Ali Khan's ancestral estate in Bhopal as 'enemy property' under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. The judgment effectively bars the Bollywood actor and his family from claiming rights over properties valued at over ₹15,000 crore.
The court's decision stems from the historical migration of Begum Abida Sultan, the actor's great-aunt and eldest daughter of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who moved to Pakistan in 1950 post-Partition and later served as a Pakistani diplomat. Her migration, the court ruled, automatically brought her Indian properties under the scope of the Enemy Property Act, which vests such assets with the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, a body under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Property Dispute
At the heart of the dispute are several iconic properties in Bhopal, including the Flag Staff House, Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, and Dar-us-Salam, which were part of the sprawling estate of the erstwhile Nawab of Bhopal. Saif Ali Khan, a descendant through Nawab Hamidullah's younger daughter Sajida Sultan, had previously been named as a legal heir in a 2000 inheritance ruling. However, the High Court has now set aside that decision, directing a fresh civil trial to re-determine the line of succession.
While the inheritance trial may continue, the court clarified that once a property is vested under the Enemy Property Act, it is no longer open to succession, sale, or transfer by heirs, regardless of their nationality or residence status.
1. What is the Enemy Property Act, and why does it matter for families with cross-border roots?
The Enemy Property Act, 1968, originally enacted in the backdrop of India's wars with Pakistan and China, allows the Indian government to seize and manage the assets of nationals from enemy countries. A 2017 amendment made the law even more stringent by barring any legal recourse for heirs and giving the government the power to sell or dispose of such assets.
The Enemy Property Act, 1968 allows the Indian Government to vest (take over) properties in India that belong to individuals or legal heirs who are nationals of an enemy country, mainly Pakistan or China. The Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), a department under the Ministry of the Home Affairs, manages these assets. Once vested, enemy property cannot be claimed back," said Abhilash Pillai, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas/
Legal experts say the law focuses on the nationality of the original titleholder—in this case, Abida Sultan—rendering any claims by subsequent Indian-born heirs invalid.
'The court's ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of the Enemy Property Act. Even legitimate Indian citizens can lose access to ancestral property if their ancestor was declared an enemy national,' said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris.
Why was Saif Ali Khan's ancestral property declared 'enemy property'?
Because his ancestors forming part of the Royal Family - Nawab of Bhopal - migrated to Pakistan after Partition, hence, the property was classified as 'enemy property'.
3. Can Indian citizens inherit property if one ancestor moved to Pakistan decades ago?
No, pursuant to Section 5B of EPA, even if the Indian citizen is a direct descendant, they cannot inherit if the person who originally owned the property became an enemy national, said Pillai. Though Saif and his family remained Indian citizens, the law views Abida Sultan as the last rightful owner, and since she became a Pakistani national, her share of the estate got permanently vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property.
Result: No inheritance, no compensation—just a 75-year-old legacy caught in the gears of a wartime law.
If the property is classified as 'enemy property, Indian citizens cannot inherit it
Even if:
You were born and raised in India
You never had contact with the ancestor who migrated
You maintained, paid taxes on, or lived on the property
If the original titleholder became an enemy national, the property is frozen—transferred to the government, and not open to inheritance.
Does this mean families in India can lose inherited property even if they've lived here for generations?
Yes, if the original owner was declared an 'enemy', the property is permanently vested in the Custodian, regardless of how long the Indian heirs lived there or managed it. The law focuses solely on the nationality of the original owner.
"Under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, if an ancestor is declared an 'enemy' typically someone who migrated to Pakistan or China during or after the Partition their properties in India vest automatically with the Custodian of Enemy Property.
This means that Indian citizens who are descendants or heirs cannot inherit or claim ownership over such enemy properties, even if they themselves have never left India.
However, if the property is not classified as 'enemy property' or if the ancestor was not formally declared an enemy, normal inheritance laws apply. In cases where properties have been vested with the Custodian, heirs have limited legal recourse and cannot assert ownership rights under regular succession laws until the enemy property status is revoked.
Thus, the presence of an ancestor who migrated to Pakistan often legally bars descendants from inheriting the ancestr Under the *Enemy Property Act, 1968*, once a property is declared 'enemy property,' it vests absolutely in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Custodian holds and manages these properties on behalf of the Government of India," said Razvi.
But what if the heirs did not know?
Ignorance of the law doesn't help here. In 2017, the law was amended retroactively, closing all loopholes. Courts can't overturn enemy property classifications, and families can't argue that they were unaware.
Even legitimate legal heirs can't stake a claim—the law overrides personal wills, succession rights, and property tax records.
"Under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, if an ancestor is declared an 'enemy' typically someone who migrated to Pakistan or China during or after the Partition their properties in India vest automatically with the Custodian of Enemy Property.
This means that Indian citizens who are descendants or heirs cannot inherit or claim ownership over such enemy properties, even if they themselves have never left India.
However, if the property is not classified as 'enemy property' or if the ancestor was not formally declared an enemy, normal inheritance laws apply. In cases where properties have been vested with the Custodian, heirs have limited legal recourse and cannot assert ownership rights under regular succession laws until the enemy property status is revoked.
Thus, the presence of an ancestor who migrated to Pakistan often legally bars descendants from inheriting the ancestr Under the *Enemy Property Act, 1968*, once a property is declared 'enemy property,' it vests absolutely in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Custodian holds and manages these properties on behalf of the Government of India," explained Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.
What happens to such 'enemy properties' can they be sold, auctioned, or claimed back?
Razvi explains this as follows:
The Custodian has the authority to manage, sell, or lease the enemy properties. The proceeds from sale or lease go to the Government treasury.
The original owners and their heirs cannot sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of these properties, as their ownership rights stand extinguished by operation of law.
The only way an heir or claimant can attempt to regain such property is through legal challenges, often arguing that the property was wrongly classified as enemy property or that the ancestor was not an enemy. Such challenges are difficult and rare to succeed in because the Act vests absolute rights in the Custodian once declared.
The property does not automatically revert to heirs even if they were unaware of the classification.
Enemy properties are controlled by the Government through the Custodian, can be sold or auctioned by the Custodian, but cannot be claimed or inherited by private heirs unless successfully challenged in court.
Saif Ali Khan's family has now been told to restart their claim at a lower court, but with the odds stacked against them.
Financial lessons for families:
If your family has cross-border roots—especially linked to Partition-era migrations—get a legal audit of ancestral properties. Here's what you can do:
Check title deeds for prior ownership trail.
Review government notifications—was the property ever listed under enemy property?
Consult a property lawyer who specializes in custodial disputes or pre-Partition inheritance cases.
Avoid investing in disputed properties, even if they appear "occupied" by current heirs.
In Saif Ali Khan's case, royal lineage couldn't stand up to a cold law from 1968. For ordinary Indian families with similar cross-border connections, the stakes are no less emotional—or financial.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Arun Maira: Dedication to the state's purpose is the key lesson we must learn from China
Arun Maira: Dedication to the state's purpose is the key lesson we must learn from China

Mint

time13 minutes ago

  • Mint

Arun Maira: Dedication to the state's purpose is the key lesson we must learn from China

India is at a crossroads. Both the political Left and Right agree that the economy needs substantial reform, but disagree on the direction. The progressive Left wants more socialism with more liberal democracy; the conservative Right wants more free-market capitalism and seems willing to tolerate curbs on liberty. The Middle seems muddled. The 20th century was a test of competing economic ideologies—socialism versus capitalism; and competing forms of governance—liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, victory was declared for the Washington Consensus of free market capitalism and liberal democracy. India's reformers adopted the Washington formula in 1991. By and large, they gave up on socialism, abandoned industrial policies aimed at growing domestic industries and opened the Indian market for foreign companies without technology-transfer requirements. China did not yield. It stayed its socialist course with single-party governance and continued to build domestic industries. Also Read: Ajit Ranade: The success of 'Made in China 2025' alarmed the West The growth of China's economy is a miracle, economists say. In the 1980s, China and India's economies were comparable in size and per capita income. Now, China's per capita income and GDP are about five times India's. China's high-tech manufacturing sector has grown 48 times larger. The US, meanwhile, has grown alarmed with China's remarkable economic growth and industrial strength despite Beijing not following Washington's economic formula. That consensus has ended even in Washington, where ideological cracks have appeared with increasing inequality and unrest among workers in the US. The US is pressing India to come closer to it. India is wary. China shares a border with India that has seen the two armies skirmish. India must become self-reliant and stronger much faster than it has so far. Reforms must result in faster income growth among the Indian masses and stronger domestic industries. India's leaders should study China for lessons before pushing harder with economic reforms based on the West's failing model. Also Read: China began de-risking its economy well before Trump's trade fury US capitalism and Chinese socialism: Three recent books offer insights into how socialism and capitalism have been combined to achieve China's inclusive and fast growth. China's leaders are good learners, says German political economist Isabella M. Weber in How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate. Like Mahatma Gandhi, they kept their minds open, allowing ideas to come in from all directions without being blown off their feet. They listened to Western economists but applied only what suited China. Weber says, 'The famous Harvard development economist Dani Rodrik represents the economics profession more broadly when he answers his own question of whether 'anyone (can) name the (Western) economists or the piece of research that played an instrumental role in China's reforms" by claiming that 'economic research, at least as conventionally understood" did not play 'a significant role." Chinese economist Keyu Jin, a professor at the London School of Economics who grew up in China and experienced the Chinese system from within, explains how the Chinese socio-economic-political system works in The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism. She explains why Western economic models, which strip out cultural and social forces from economics, cannot comprehend how China works—or even how Western economies work. She makes visible the 'invisible hand' that free-market economists cannot explain. She explains why the Chinese government keeps financial markets and the private sector reined in to ensure the market produces welfare for all, especially poorer and least powerful citizens. She says, 'The number of financial crises in China is exactly zero. It is also an oddity (from a Western perspective) that despite the nation's preternatural economic growth, its stock market has been one of the worst performing in the world." Also Read: Chinese history shows how a closed economy could squander a nation's greatness The Chinese government has added citizen satisfaction and environmental sustainability to GDP as a measure of its own performance (and of local governments). Though private firms grew nine-fold in China from 2000 to 2019 (their number now exceeds the US's by far), 'A more striking fact," says Lin, 'is that private owners with state connections owned about a third of the capital registered by these companies, showing how pervasive equity linkages between state and private businesses have become in China's corporate sector." While the government has reduced the number of state-owned enterprises and pushed the remainder to add profits to their social objectives, it also demands that private firms comply with societal needs. Large, private, property and tech firms that strayed from the socialist path have been cut down. Three distinctive features of China's governance: The purpose of the state, throughout China's long history from imperial times to the Communist era, has been the welfare of citizens. The best emperor was seen as one who provides the most welfare to all citizens, not one who wins the most wars. The leadership of the Communist Party has continued this role, says Chinese political scientist Zheng Yongnian in The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor: Culture, Reproduction, and Transformation. Jin explains further (in The New China Playbook) how the ruling party's commitment to this role has shaped Beijing's socio-economic policies, resulting in widespread support for the party even among the young. Also Read: Rahul Jacob: Manufacturing is crying out for a reality check The governance of China is highly decentralized. Local communities are given freedom to craft solutions suited to their needs; the performance of local party officials is measured by the satisfaction of their communities with progress. Chinese leaders and economists are 'systems thinkers.' They see the economy as only a component of a complex social system. For them, the purpose of economic growth is the production of societal well-being, especially for less powerful people. Whenever the economy begins to fail this purpose, reforms are made to bring it back to its socialist moorings. India must not slavishly follow Western models. Nor can India be China. India must find its own way to create a more equitable society. The author is a former member of the erstwhile Planning Commission and the author of 'Reimagining India's Economy: The Road to a More Equitable Society'.

Reuters account on Twitter restored in India, email from the company says ‘At this time, we are no longer…'
Reuters account on Twitter restored in India, email from the company says ‘At this time, we are no longer…'

Time of India

time22 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Reuters account on Twitter restored in India, email from the company says ‘At this time, we are no longer…'

Elon Musk-owned X has restored access to Reuters' official account in India, a day after it had been blocked due to a legal request. The main @Reuters account, followed by over 25 million users globally, was withheld in India on Saturday night. Indian users who tried to access it saw a message saying the account had been withheld 'in response to a legal demand.' However, a spokesperson for the Indian government's Press Information Bureau told Reuters that no government agency had requested the block. The official said they were working with X to resolve the issue. Another account, @ReutersWorld, which was also blocked in India, was restored later Sunday night. Announcing that the ban has now been lifted, Reuters quoted an email from X which said 'At this time, we are no longer withholding access in INDIA to your account'. Why Reuters account was banned in India Official sources told news agency PTI that a request to block Reuters' account was made during Operation Sindoor . The microblogging platform seems to have now acted on that request and blocking Reuters' account in the country. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Serbia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House Search Now Undo In an earlier email dated May 16, X had told Reuters: 'It is our policy to notify account holders if we receive a legal request from an authorized entity (such as law enforcement or a government agency) to remove content from their account.' 'In order to comply with X obligations under India's local laws, we have withheld your X account in India under the country's Information Technology Act, 2000; the content remains available elsewhere,' the platform added. X did not specify which content triggered the action, who filed the request, or why it was made. The company noted that users can contact the secretary of India's Information and Broadcasting Ministry for further action. iOS 26 Beta 2 Hands-On: Apple Finally Does It

How Tahawwur Rana helped identify key targets of 26/11 attack: ‘Lashkar functioned more as spy network'
How Tahawwur Rana helped identify key targets of 26/11 attack: ‘Lashkar functioned more as spy network'

Mint

time23 minutes ago

  • Mint

How Tahawwur Rana helped identify key targets of 26/11 attack: ‘Lashkar functioned more as spy network'

One of the conspirators of the 26/11 attack, Tahawwur Rana, revealed details of how he helped orchestrate the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 that left over 160 people dead. Sources in the Mumbai Police crime branch told NDTV that during the interrogation, Rana shared how he helped David Coleman Headley, the mastermind of the attacks, identify key targets of attack. In April this year, the US extradited 'convicted terrorist' Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Canadian citizen and native of Pakistan, to stand trial in India on 10 criminal charges stemming from his alleged role in the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. According to NDTV sources, Rana said that he completed an MBBS course in 1986 from the Army Medical College in Pakistan's Rawalpindi and was commissioned as a Captain doctor in the Pakistani Army in Quetta. He was posted in sensitive regions such as Sindh, Balochistan, Bahawalpur, and Siachen-Balotra, the report added. During the time in Siachen, Rana reportedly developed pulmonary edema, which led to his absence from duty. He was then declared a deserter. 'Pulmonary edema' is an abnormal condition that causes a fluid buildup in the lungs. Rana had earlier said that he had agreed to be part of the terror plot because David Headley had assured that he would help clean Rana's records. Rana further informed that Headley had attended three Lashkar-e-Taiba training camps between 2003 and 2004. The terrorists quoted Headley as telling him that Lashkar functioned more as a spy network than an ideological outfit, NDTV reported. Rana had reportedly visited India in November 2008, days before the terror attack. He had stayed at a hotel in Mumbai's Powai on the 20th and 21st. Just before the strike, he left for Beijing via Dubai. According to a 405-page supplementary chargesheet filed by the crime branch in 2023, Rana helped Headley collect information about crowded locations like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus. As many as 14 witnesses confirmed his role. Rana blamed the Indian Embassy when asked about forged Indian documents that aided the terrorists, NDTV reported. The investigation, however, revealed that Rana helped Headley enter India using false documents. Rana reportedly admitted to knowing Pakistani officials Sajid Mir, Abdul Rehman Pasha, and Major Iqbal, all accused of planning the attacks. He is learned to have actively coordinated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani spy agency ISI. Between November 26 and 29, 2008, 10 LeT terrorists carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks in Mumbai. 'They infiltrated the city by sea and then broke into teams, dispersing to multiple locations,' the White House said earlier. Attackers at a train station fired guns and threw grenades into crowds. Attackers at two restaurants shot indiscriminately at patrons. Attackers at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel gunned people down and detonated explosives. They also shot and killed people at a Jewish community center. After the attacks were complete, Rana allegedly told Headley that the Indians 'deserved it.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store