News Articles Day Wise case related

https://fatemidawatlegal.com/news-coverage-of-final-arguments/

1 April 2014
1.1 Bombay high court judge recuses himself from hearing
Syedna successor row
Updated : Apr 08, 2014, 09:30 AM IST
The suit came up for hearing before justice SJ Kathawalla on Monday.
However, he recused himself from hearing the case as he had appeared
for the late Syedna in the past in another matter. The suit will now be
placed before another judge of the high court and will come up for
hearing in due course of time.

2 Sept 2014

2.1 Bohra succession row: HC to judge if Qutbuddin can prove

anointment
15-Sept-2014
Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the 73-year-old half-brother of the late Syedna
had in March filed a suit against the official successor seeking that the
later be restrained from taking actions as the leader.
The Bombay high court framed issues in the Dawoodi Bohra succession
dispute on Monday, and will adjudicate, among other things, on

1
whether the challenger to the leadership can prove that he was
conferred/pronounced with “nass” – the official declaration of
succession.
Qutbuddin’s claim is that the late Syedna had privately anointed him to
take over several years ago. The other side has said Saifuddin was
publicly anointed as successor.
“What are the requirements of a valid nass as per the tenants of the
faith?” is one of the issues that has been framed and was recorded in
Monday’s order. Further, the court will decide on whether Qutbuddin
“proves that he was ever conferred/ pronounced a validly pronounced
nass as stated in the plaint”.
Both sides came with broad issues that they had previously exchanged
with each other, which were fine-tuned by the court.
Justice GS Patel also raised the issue of translation of the scriptures
crucial to the case. “How will you prove the correct interpretation of
texts?” the judge asked.
Both sides informed him that they had approached the court translator
but the issue had not been really gone into.
The judge then asked if anyone in the legal community was equipped to
do this.
“Otherwise it will be one expert against another expert,” said the judge.
“How will you cross-examine each other’s witnesses?”
The suit will next be heard on October 14 for fixing the next date of
hearing after certain formalities are done and for deciding the schedule
for the trial.
Dawoodi Bohra succession suit: Bombay HC upholds Syedna Saifuddin’s
claim
2
The Bombay high court held that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin has
proved that he was validly appointed by the 52nd Dai (spiritual leader
of the community) as his successor
The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed the Dawoodi Bohra
succession suit originally filed by late Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and
followed up by his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin and held that Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin has proved that he was validly appointed by the
52nd Dai Al-Mutlaq (spiritual leader and head of the community) as his
successor. At the trial, both sides presented their evidence and made
elaborate submissions on their respective claims. The final hearing in
the case started on November 28, 2022 and went on for 46 full days, in
which both sides presented detailed arguments in support of their
respective claims. The final hearing concluded on May 4, 2023, when
the court reserved its order.

3 Feb 2018

3.1 Disputes from the past discussed in Bohra succession case

Hindustan Times | ByManoj R Nair
Feb 18, 2018 11:37 PM IST

The dispute arose when Qutbuddin, the half-brother of Syedna

Mohammed Burhanuddin, the 52nd Dai or head of the sect, claimed
the title after the latter’s death in January 2014.
The Bombay high court is hearing the dispute over the succession to
the spiritual leadership of the Dawoodi Bohras, a Shia group which has
its headquarters in Mumbai.
The next set of hearings in the case is scheduled in March and April.(HT FILE)
3
The dispute arose when Qutbuddin, the half-brother of Syedna
Mohammed Burhanuddin, the 52nd Dai or head of the sect, claimed
the title after the latter’s death in January 2014. He filed a suit in the
high court challenging the appointment of the latter’s son Mufaddal
Saiffudin as the next leader. Qutbuddin told the court that his brother
had appointed him as his successor five decades ago, when he was
elevated to the title of ‘Mazoon’, the second rank in the clergy.
Mufaddal Saifuddin’s supporters say he was appointed successor by his
father in June 2011 in London where he was recuperating after a
stroke.
The main point of contention is the ‘Nass’ or the ceremony announcing the successor by the Dai
and whether it should be done privately or before the community, and if there should be an
explicit announcement of the successor - whether the choice of the heir should be put down in
writing or announced in the presence of witnesses. Taher Fakhruddin has said that the
announcement must be by a direct statement while the other side says that a private appointment
is valid according to Bohra doctrine, and there are precedents.
PROMOTED

Finding a Job in the USA from Pakistan Might be Easier Than You ThinkJob in the USA | Search Ads|

Sponsored

These Celebrities Stay Far Away From AlcoholOceandraw|

Sponsored

Sushmita Sen suffered heart attack two days ago: ‘Angioplasty done, stent in place; doctor confirmed I have a
big heart’Hindustan Times

25 Of The Most Beautiful Women In HistorySizzlfy|

Sponsored

4
She Was A Legendary Actress - Today She Works 9 To 5Bedtimez|

Sponsored

Arbaaz Khan says it was ‘difficult' for mom Salma when dad Salim Khan decided to marry Helen: ‘It’s
complicated…'Hindustan Times

Police Officer Stops Man Who Looks Like Deceased Son, Asks Him To Exit Car After Taking Closer
LookWanderoam|

Sponsored

Couple Made a Bet, See How They Look After A YearHouse Jogger|

Sponsored

Qutbuddin died in March 2016 and his son Taher Fakhruddin is pursuing the claim as the
successor. The spiritual head, called Syedna or Dai, are representatives of Imams – the line of
successors to Islam’s prophet – who went into seclusion after disputes over succession. Though
the post was not necessarily passed on as a hereditary title, some families have controlled the
office for generations. The title is coveted because it gives control the rich trusts of the one-
million strong sect largely made up of traders and professionals. The followers of Qutbuddin
now call themselves Qutbuddin Bohras. While the Syedna Mufaddal Saiffudin, manages his
community’s affairs from the headquarters in Badri Mahal in Mumbai’s Fort area and Saifee
Mahal, his house in Malabar Hill, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin has made Darus Sakina, his house in
Thane, as his office.
This column had discussed how this is not the first time there have been splits in the community.
The Dawoodi Bohras broke away from the mainstream Shia sect – which separated from the
larger Sunni group after the first dispute over the successor to Islam’s prophet. A book by Mian
Bhai Mulla Abdul Hussain documents splits during the tenure of the 18th, 26th, 28th, 40th and
49th Dais. Other experts have said there have been more breakups.
One breakup led to formation of a group called Jafferias led by their leader who was known as
Jafer. In 1897 AD, a preacher from Mumbai named Abdul Husain declared himself as the Dai
and his followers were called Mahdibagwallas, as their headquarters is a place named Mahdi
Baug. In the 1960s and 1970s, after an agitation against the religious establishment, a group

5
called the Reformist Bohras. This group does not have a spiritual leader but run their affiars
through a separate trust.
The disputes from the past are now been discussed in the high court. Last week, the senior
lawyer representing the defendant (Mufaddal Saifuddin) asked the plaintiff (Taher Fakhruddin) if
there was proof of the 27th Dai’s succession against the rival claimant Sulayman.
Last week, the plaintiff, when asked if he accepted that the Ismaili treatises on law, doctrine and
history, authored by Ismail bin Abdurrasool al-Ujjaini was an authoritative, said that it was not
‘fully authoritative’, as the author, who is known in the community as the renegade al-Majdu,
revolted against the 40th Dai.
The next set of hearings in the case is scheduled in March and April. Dawoodi Bohras loyal to
Mufaddal Saifuddin said that the case was of little interest to them as they believe that their
leader is the rightful claimant to the title. “Our community is not bothered about what is
happening in the courts. They have already decided who is the Syedna,” said a Bohra who
requested that his name should be revealed.

4 Jan 2019

4.1 Syedna’s claim that he was anointed false: Cousin to

Bombay ..
Jan 30, 2019, 07:19 IST
MUMBAI: The cousin of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on Tuesday t ..

Read more at:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/67747215.cms?
utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cpp
st

6
 5 Nov 2022

5.1 Succession row: Battle of the Syednas begins in Bombay

HC
Mumbai News

Published on Nov 29, 2022 12:29 AM IST

Mumbai: Courtroom Number 37 of the Bombay high court was packed with the family
members, well-wishers and advocates from both sides as the much-awaited final hearing of the
Dawoodi Bohra succession row commenced on Monday
Mumbai: Courtroom Number 37 of the Bombay high court was packed with the family
members, well-wishers and advocates from both sides as the much-awaited final hearing of the
Dawoodi Bohra succession row commenced on Monday. Other than the black-and-white robes
of the advocates, the only other clothing visible in the courtroom was the traditional white long
coat and gold-embroidered white caps donned by members of the Dawoodi Bohra community. A
few women wearing traditional colourful burkhas were also present.
Anand Desai, counsel for Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, commenced proceedings by giving the
court an overview of the arguments that would be advanced to justify the claim that both Syedna
Khuzaima Qutbuddin and, after him, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin were the rightfully appointed
successors to Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, the 52nd Dai, who passed away in January
2014. He also submitted to Justice Gautam Patel the list of evidences that would be relied upon
to justify the succession of Syedna Qutbuddin.
Desai referred to a letter addressed by the 51st Dai to Syedna Qutbuddin, wherein he was lauded
for his first waaz (sermon) in 1960. The counsel submitted that the words used in the letter “that
you spoke in full flow with the aid of Allah and flowing stream of his Wali Imam uz Zaman’s
ta’eed (divine guidance)” made it evident that Syedna Qutbuddin had the benefaction of the
secluded Imam. According to the Bohra belief, the secluded Imam uz Zaman only does ta’eed of
the existing Dai or someone similar to him in rank, which the letter said was Syedna Qutbuddin.

The bench was informed that this letter by the 51st Dai made it clear that Syedna Qutbuddin was
deemed successor of the 52nd Dai well in advance. The bench was also informed of the fact that
7
in 1985 the 52nd Dai had stated that the letter of the 51st Dai was a “priceless treasure” which
needed to be preserved, and had directed Syedna Qutbuddin, who was the maazoon (second-in-
command), to ensure that the letter was kept safely.
Referring to the indicators that they would be relying upon during the final hearing, Desai
submitted that during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai, all family and community members had
accorded the same respect to Syedna Qutbuddin as they did to the 52nd Dai. The reverential acts
included doing sajda (prostration) to Syedna Qutbuddin and bowing to him as well.
Desai further submitted that Syedna Qutbuddin was referred to as ‘Maula’ (Master or Leader), a
word only used to address the Dai, and whenever the names of the 51st and 52nd Dai were taken
along with Syedna Qutbuddin, they all would be referred to as Maula by family and community
members.
The next indicator was that it was common knowledge in the community Syedna Qutbuddin
would be of the highest rank ie Dai and had special knowledge. Desai submitted that both
Syedna Qutbuddin, and after him Syedna Fakhruddin, possessed such special knowledge for
managing the affairs of the community.
Syedna Fakhruddin had attended court in the first session but left thereafter. His absence was
made up for by the presence of his mother, the wife of the late Syedna Qutbuddin. His seven
siblings, along with their wives and children, were present throughout the day in the courtroom.
Case Background
Syedna Qutbuddin filed a suit in the HC in March 2014, stating that he was the 53rd Dai as he
had been conferred ‘nass’ by the 52nd Dai, Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, privately in
December 1965. Syedna Qutbuddin stated that despite the ‘nass’ conferred on him, Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin, the son of the 52nd Dai, had announced himself as the 53rd Dai after the
demise of his father in January 2014.
Syedna Mufaddal justified his action by stating that he was conferred ‘nass’ by his father when
the latter was in a London hospital in 2011, and that his succession had been publicly announced
by his father in Mumbai as well.
When Syedna Qutbuddin passed away in 2016, his son Syedna Fakhruddin replaced him in the
suit. Syedna Fakhruddin informed the bench that he was conferred ‘nass’ by his father before his
demise and hence he was the 54th Dai.

6 HC asks why Syedna Qutbuddin was silent on

succession issue between 2011-2014
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Nov 30, 2022 12:41 AM IST

8
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday—the second day of the final
hearing in the Syedna succession row—narrowed down the scope of the
hearing to three major issues and directed the counsels for the plaintiff,
Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, to deal with them.
The first issue was why Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Syedna Fakhruddin’s
father, remained silent from 2011 to 2014, the period when Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin took over the administration of the community as his father, the
52nd Dai, was unwell.

The second issue was whether the usage of the word ‘Maula’ by family
members to address Syedna Qutbuddin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai
necessarily implied that they accepted that he was the next Dai.
The third issue was whether the reverential act of doing sajda (prostration) to
Syedna Qutbuddin prior to 2011 by family members was also an indicator
that he was the successor of the 52nd Dai.
Justice Gautam Patel, who since 2014 has been hearing the suit filed by
Syedna Qutbuddin—which was continued by his son Syedna Fakhruddin
after his demise—told senior counsel Anand Desai that the time gap from
2011 to 2014 was going to be crucial. Why, he questioned, did PW1 (Syedna
Qutbuddin) not protest when the appointment of the defendant (Syedna
Mufaddal) as 53rd Dai was publicly announced if, as he claimed, he himself
had been conferred with nass (appointment through divine inspiration of
Imam uz Zaman) decades earlier? Justice Patel said that he expected Desai to
address the issues, which the counsel agreed to do in the course of his
submissions.

The bench then asked Desai to address the matter in two parts, namely the
factual and doctrinal aspects, and break up the factual aspects into three
separate parts, comprising the actual pronouncement of the nass, the narrative
9
and the other indicators which would be used to prove Syedna Fakhruddin’s
stand.
While responding to the query as to why Syedna Qutbuddin, who in
December 1965 had been conferred nass privately by the 52nd Dai, kept it a
secret, Desai said it was done in compliance with the instructions of the 52nd
Dai.
“I’m still struggling with this part of the narrative, which seems increasingly
problematic. If there is this kind of widespread declaration on the position of
PW1, what is the explanation for the actual nass being kept secret?” the
bench sought to know.
Desai assured the bench that he would address the issue, and continued the
overview of the arguments started on Monday. He first pointed to the alamat
(letterhead) bestowed upon Syedna Qutbuddin in 1958 by the 51st Dai. Desai
submitted that the alamat, in the form of a verse from the Qur’an which read
“You will be a blessing”, showed that Syedna Qutbuddin was already
deemed to be a Dai after the 52nd Dai.
The counsel further submitted that the word ‘Maula’, by which Syedna
Qutbuddin was referred to during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai, was used by
Prophet Mohammad for himself and his brother Hazrat Ali while announcing
the latter as his successor. Hence, he submitted, it was an established fact
among family members that Syedna Qutbuddin would be the next Dai, and
thus was addressed as Maula.
However, as an expert in Arabic had said ‘Maula’ did not necessarily imply
master or leader, the bench asked Desai to clarify. While agreeing with this,
Desai drew the attention of the bench to the letters written by various
persons, including Syedna Mufaddal to Syedna Qutbuddin, wherein the 51st

10
and 52nd Dais were referred to as Bewe Maula (both maula) and he was also
called Maula. Desai said that when seen in the context of Bewe Maula,
addressing Syedna Qutbuddin as Maula indicated that he was assumed to be
the Dai-to-be.
Desai also pointed to a few letters written between 1968 and early 2000. He
also referred to a letter by a scribe of the 51st and 52nd Dai, where he told
Syedna Qutbuddin that he was the Haroon of the 52nd Dai. The reference
was to the historical fact of Prophet Haroon being the successor of Prophet
Moses.
In the second session, the overview revolved around sajda (prostration). The
bench sought to know whether the sajda being done to the Dais was an act of
worship or reverence. Was it a common practice for the community to do
sajda of whoever they respected or was it only restricted to the Dais?
Desai submitted that there was a difference in sajda, and that the sajda of
worship was only for Allah while the sajda of reverence was observed only
for the Imam uz Zaman, Dai or Dai-to-be. He submitted that the fact that
sajda was done before Syedna Qutbuddin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai
by family members indicated that it was common knowledge that he was
going to be the next Dai.

7 Dec 2022

7.1 Can claim of secret ‘nass’ stand in absence of witnesses,

asks HC
11
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Dec 01, 2022 12:00 AM IST
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday sought to know from
Syedna Taher Fakhruddin how he was justifying the late Syedna
Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s claim that he was conferred nass by the 52nd
Dai, Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, in the absence of a direct
corroboration by any witness.
Justice Gautam Patel also asked senior counsel Anand Desai,
representing Syedna Fakhruddin, to explain whether the sole statement
of Syedna Qutbuddin was accepted in the Dawoodi Bohra community
as proof of his succession in light of statements made by witnesses
during the trial that it depended on a case-to-case basis. The bench has
asked Desai to deal with the issue of witnesses in detail on Thursday.
On Wednesday, Desai dealt with the factual aspect of the claim of nass
being conferred upon Syedna Qutbuddin. The counsel informed the
bench that as per the statement of Syedna Qutbuddin, he had been
called to the private chamber of the 52nd Dai on December 10, 1965,
wherein he was told that he would be named the maazoon (second in
command) later in the day during a sermon in Saifee Masjid. The 52nd
Dai had then bestowed on him a ring which belonged to the 51st Dai.
This act, according to Syedna Qutbuddin, was sufficient for him to
assume that he was going to be the successor. However, on the
instructions of the Dai, he did not disclose it to anyone. Desai referred
to an evidentiary document wherein it was stated that the other
brothers would be disgruntled and as they might react violently, he was
told to keep it under wraps.
The bench was then informed that in a sermon later in the day, Syedna
Burhanuddin announced that Syedna Qutbuddin was the maazoon but,
12
more importantly, referred to him as ‘my beloved son’ although Syedna
Qutbuddin was his half-brother. The bench was told that the 52nd Dai
had never used such words for any of his brothers, and this was an
indicator for those present, especially the family and spiritually learned
persons from the community. Following this, they all accorded Syedna
Qutbuddin the honour of reverential gestures like sajda and kissing the
ground. These acts, Desai submitted, were reserved for the Dai or Dai-
to-be and hence indirectly corroborated his claim of being conferred
with nass by the 52nd Dai.
When the bench asked whether anyone from the community who was
present during the sermon was examined during the trial, Desai replied
in the negative. The court then noted, “In a civil suit, indirect
corroboration has to be of such magnitude that the absence of direct
corroboration (witness who heard the sermon) can be dispensed with.”
Justice Patel sought to know whether the nass conferment was ever
conveyed or disclosed to anyone by the 52nd Dai, to which Desai
submitted that it was not.
Thereafter, the court sought to know about the doctrinal aspect of
witnesses among the Dawoodi Bohra community with regard to nass
and appointment of successors, and whether the stand-alone
statement of Syedna Qutbuddin or indirect indication sufficed as proof
of his appointment.
Desai referred to the appointment of some previous Dais and said that
the sole statement of the appointee had been accepted although there
were no witnesses. He submitted that in the past, both forms of
appointment had been accepted by the community. He also referred to
the statement of independent witness Prof Devin Stewart, professor of
Arabic and Islamic Studies, Emory University, to reiterate that the
appointee did not require witnesses to prove his appointment.
13
Desai also referred to two incidents during the lifetime of the Holy
Prophet noted in Dawoodi Bohra books to show that nass did not have
to be explicitly conferred upon someone and that mere indication
sufficed to prove succession. The bench then sought to know more
about the doctrine of witnesses in light of the insistence by Syedna
Mufaddal that the witness of two men was needed to prove an
appointment. Desai replied that though most ritualistic acts like nikaah
needed witnesses, since the act of conferring nass was the prerogative
of the Dai who was divinely inspired by the Imam uz Zaman, witnesses
were not required.

7.2 Is divine appointment valid if appointee pre-deceases

appointer, asks HC
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 02, 2022 11:21 PM IST

Mumbai: The Syedna succession case on Friday reached an important

juncture as the Bombay high court was informed that the defendants held the
view that nass (appointment done through the divine inspiration of Imam uz
Zaman) could be changed.

However, Anand Desai, the counsel for Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, reiterated
that the Dawoodi Bohra community believed that it could not, since it was
pre-ordained and came from the Dai who was infallible. Moreover, he said,
once nass was conferred, even if the appointee passed away during the life of
the appointer, it was assumed that the deceased successor took up the position
in heaven, hence the nass could not be revoked.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime,
anywhere. Explore now!

14
The defendants, on their part, produced three documents to bolster their claim
that nass was revokable. Dealing with the first of these, Desai informed the
bench that the document, a book in Arabic, was written by a rebel during the
time of the 29th Dai and hence was not relied upon by the community. Desai
submitted that the 52nd Dai in his sermons had time and again exhorted the
community to refrain from relying upon books written by rebels and enemies
of the dawat.
PROMOTED

Greta Thunberg's Car Shocks The World, Proof In Picturesinvesting.com|

Sponsored

Deze nieuwe trapliften voor senioren zijn indrukwekkend (kijk maar eens)Traplift voor senioren | Zoek Advertenties|

Sponsored

Open an account today!Interactive Brokers|

Sponsored

Deze nieuwe trapliften voor senioren zijn indrukwekkend (neem een kijkje)WallStreet Viral|

Sponsored

Rajnath Singh on Arvind Kejriwal arrest: ‘There is no washing machine, if Sanjay Singh can get bail, why
not…’Hindustan Times

Deze videodeurbel is dе hit vаn 2024 en kost bijnа nietsVerisure®|

Sponsored

15
Nieuwe appartementen voor senioren in Amsterdam: Comfortabel en betaalbaarSenior Appartementen | Zoek
Advertenties|

Sponsored

Het is triest om te zien hoe Beppie Melissen leeft op haar 72steToday's NYC|

Sponsored

Desai then referred to the translation of a part of the book that dealt with
whether a Dai could revoke a nass in the last moments of his life. Both sides
had translated the portion, he submitted, but while the translation by his side
said this nass was not revocable, the other side stated that it was. Due to the
discrepancies, the defendants brought in an expert in classical Arabic
language. The expert opined that the translation by the defendants was
correct while that of the plaintiff was not.
The bench was then told by Desai that the expert’s conclusion could not be
relied upon, as he did not have an understanding of Dawoodi Bohra customs
and literature and had opined on the translation without considering the
context. Further, he said, as the expert had based his opinion on inputs
provided to him by the Jamia al Saifia (which comprises people of the
defendants), it could not be relied on.
On the query of the bench on what happens when a mansoos (one on whom
nass is conferred) passes away during the lifetime of his predecessor, Desai
submitted that it had happened in the case of the 43rd Dai and in the
historical case of Prophet Haroon wherein despite their demise, they were
accorded the position of Dai and prophet.

16
When Justice Patel sought to know what material there was historically and
doctrinally where conferment and communication was not proved, Desai said
it was the actions of men of higher spiritual learning that had to be taken into
consideration. However, the bench said that as the actions such as prostration
and addressing a mansoos as Maula were not exclusive, what was the other
evidence that could be relied upon?

7.3 Give doctrinal proof that nass cannot be revoked, says HC

ByK A Y Dodhiya
Dec 02, 2022 12:43 AM IST
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Thursday said that it was keen on
understanding the stand of both plaintiff and defence witnesses with
regard to the doctrine of nass. The factual aspects of nass have already
been dealt with by the court in the hearing.
On being questioned by Justice Gautam Patel, senior
advocate Anand Desai, representing Syedna Taher Fakhruddin,
submitted that nass without the presence of witnesses was an accepted
practice in the community. He referred to the appointment of the eight
Dai where, although he was informed by his predecessor of his
appointment privately, did not disclose it to anyone.
Desai submitted that as there could have been other aspirants to the
post of Dai after the demise of the seventh Dai, the eighth Dai had
resorted to a method that is widely accepted by the community today,
ie to test the knowledge of the people to ascertain who had answers to
questions formulated by him. After everyone failed to answer the

17
questions, the eighth Dai had the answers and then announced himself
as the successor of the seventh Dai, which was readily accepted.
“In the event of any ambiguity with regard to who is the
rightly appointed Dai, the level of knowledge of the claimants is put to
test,” said the counsel. “In the same way, Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin,
and later his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, also invited Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin to a debate, but he did not respond.”
In light of this, Justice Patel sought to know whether Syedna Fakhruddin
believed that mere communication between appointer and appointee
of the nass without it being communicated to anyone was sufficient for
an appointment to be made. Desai confirmed it.
When the bench sought to know whether there were instances in the
past of an appointment being kept secret, Desai cited the appointment
of the 13th Imam who did not disclose the fact of his Imamate to
anyone for a few years even as people were wreaking havoc till he was
divinely inspired to announce it.
During the afternoon session, the submissions revolved around the
revocation of ‘nass’. In response to the query by Justice Patel on
whether ‘nass’ once conferred on someone could be revoked, Desai
said that it was an established doctrine that it could not. He said he
would refer to submissions made by defence witnesses to fortify his
point.
Referring to the examination of Kinana Mudar Dawoodi, assistant
director of Jamia, a Dawoodi Bohra institution in Dubai, Desai cited the
appointment of Ismail as the sixth Imam and his son Mohammad as the
seventh Imam. Dawoodi had stated that the fifth Imam had appointed
Ismail as his successor. However, though Ismail passed away during the
lifetime of his father, the Dawoodi Bohra community believed that as

18
he had been pre-ordained to be the next Imam, they accepted him as
the sixth Imam.
The counsel for Syedna Saifuddin informed the bench that as the issue
of the Imamate of the fifth, sixth and seventh Imams was a sensitive
one, they would not be pressing on it.
The bench, on its part, sought to know how a doctrine could be
extracted from one instance, and said it expected the parties to refer to
documents, evidences and texts to show whether revocation of nass
was impossible as a doctrine.
When the bench sought to know from Desai whether Dawoodi had
been cross-examined on the inferences he drew with regard to the
Imamate of the fifth to seventh Imams, Desai replied in the negative
but said that another witness had been cross-examined on the
same. However, Justice Patel replied that he was required by law to
reject any inferences drawn by one witness, which were corroborated
by another witness. “The same witness who has made the inference
has to corroborate it,” he said.

7.4 Defendant, witnesses backtracked on nass issue, says

counsel
ByK A Y Dodhiya
06-Dec-2022

Mumbai: Arguments in the Syedna succession case on Monday became

more pointed as Anand Desai, counsel for Syedna Taher Fakhruddin,
submitted that the three documents referred to by the defendant—
which sought to prove that conferment of nass had to have witnesses,

19
and also that nass, once conferred, could be revoked—were not
reliable due to discrepancies in the manuscripts.
The counsel also submitted that these manuscripts were not part of the
authoritative books and sermons relied upon by the Dais. Some
defence witnesses too, he added, had agreed to the books being
‘Nakasa’ (incomplete or unreliable), and some witnesses had even
admitted that they had never heard of them.
However, the bench noted that incomplete books would not make
necessarily make the rest of the content in the books unreliable, and
there had to be explicit proof to discredit the books referred to by the
defence.
Desai then submitted that neither the 51st nor the 52nd Dai had
referred to the said books in their treatises or sermons, and some
documents produced as evidence seemed to have been altered.
The attention of the bench was then drawn to the sermons of
defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin during 2013 and 2014,
pertaining to the issue of appointing successors during the time of the
third, fourth and the fifth Dai. Desai submitted that in 2013, the
defendant had maintained the line of his predecessors that the third
Dai had intended to appoint the fifth Dai as his immediate successor
but had not done so. However, in the 2014 sermon, he had stated that
the third Dai appointed the fifth Dai as his immediate successor but
later revoked the appointment and appointed his own son instead.
This, Desai said, was to prove that revocation was permitted in the
faith.
The bench was then informed about the appointments during the time
of the 24th, 25th and 26th Dais and submitted that based on the
deposition of Syedna Fakhruddin, the conferment of nass on the 27th

20
Dai, Dawood Qutubshah, by the 25th Dai, Yusuf Najmuddin, was for
some other post like leading prayers in the absence of the Dai. The nass
of succession, distinct from other nass, was done only on the 26th Dai,
Dawood Ajabshah, and hence there was no revocation of nass even at
that time. Desai pointed out that the defence witness, an expert in
doctrine, had initially confirmed this but later backtracked in his
affidavit.
Similarly, the bench was informed of the appointment issue being
raised during the appointment of the 50th Dai. However, after it was
told that there was no documentary evidence either from the 49th or
50th Dai in this regard, the bench sought to know what the 51st and
52nd Dai had to say and adjourned the hearing.

7.5 Plaintiff casts doubts on veracity of will produced by

defence witness
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Dec 07, 2022 12:07 AM IST
Mumbai: As the Syedna succession case hearing veered towards more
sensitive issues on Tuesday, the Bombay high court asked the counsel
for the plaintiff to exercise extreme caution as the sanctity of the tightly
knit community was at stake.
During the hearing, the submissions of Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin,
the original plaintiff who died in 2016, were presented by the counsel.
The bench was informed that Syedna Qutbuddin had remained silent
during 2011 and 2014 when the defendant was announced as the
successor of the 52nd Dai only to comply with the instructions of the
52nd Dai to keep his appointment confidential. The counsel said that

21
Syedna Qutbuddin prayed for the 52nd Dai’s health to improve so that
could set right the issue of who was his rightful successor.
Earlier, the counsel for Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, who replaced his
father in the suit in 2016, said his client had doubts about the veracity
of the alleged will of the 49th Dai, which the defendant had brought to
prove an instance of the revocation of nass. As per the will, the 49th Dai
had first conferred nass on one of his close aides, but changed it four
months later. However, Desai informed the bench that though the
alleged will was in the custody of the 52nd Dai, a defence witness said
he was provided a copy of it by the defendant, which was unlikely since
the will was found from a cupboard which could only be accessed by
the 52nd Dai.
Referring to the events that unfolded after the 52nd Dai was admitted
to a London hospital on June 1, 2011, senior counsel Anand Desai told
the bench that though Syedna Qutbuddin was the maazoon (second in
command) and mansoos (on whom nass was conferred), he came to
know about his superior being admitted to hospital only on June
4. Desai, referring to the deposition of Syedna Qutbuddin, said he was
deliberately kept in the dark about these events by those around the
52nd Dai.
Syedna Qutbuddin then came to know that an event was organised in
Saifee Masjid on June 6, 2011, wherein a taped message of the
defendant’s elder brother would be played and the event would be
presided over by the mukasir (third in command). However, assuming
that the event was intended to pray for the health of the 52nd Dai, he
decided to attend and eventually presided over it.
After the tape was played, wherein the succession of the defendant
was announced, Syedna Qutbuddin, though he observed that the 52nd
Dai’s conferment of nass upon him privately in 1965 was being violated,
22
remained silent on account of the oath of confidentiality he had sworn
to his leader.
Thereafter, Syedna Qutbuddin learnt that the succession of the
defendant was going to be announced on the occasion of the death
anniversary of the 51st Dai in Mumbai. Torn between the need to
attend his father’s death anniversary gathering and avoiding the event
where the defendant’s succession would be announced, Syedna
Qutbuddin decided to invoke divine consultation through the Quran,
and thereafter acted on the verse which recommended that he leave
the city before the event.
Desai then informed the bench that after the demise of the 52nd Dai,
during a sermon at his residence in Thane, Syedna Qutbuddin
announced that he had been conferred the nass by his predecessor
privately in December 1965 and hence he was the 53rd Dai. Syedna
Qutbuddin held a copy of the Quran which belonged to the 51st Dai
and swore upon it to prove that he was being truthful about his
succession.

7.6 Original and changed nass both based on divine

inspiration: Defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 08, 2022 12:19 AM IST

Mumbai: Counsels for the defendant, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, in the

Syedna succession case commenced their arguments on Wednesday,
submitting that revocation or change of nass (appointment of a successor)
was not historically uncommon in the Dawoodi Bohra faith.

The HC was also informed that the assumption by the original plaintiff,
Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, that nass was conferred on him by the 52nd
23
Dai in a private meeting on December 10, 1965, was not valid as it was not
corroborated by any witness, and the 52nd Dai had publicly announced his
appointment only as maazoon (second in command) and not mansoos
(successor) later in the day.
Senior counsel Iqbal Chagla also submitted that as there was positive
evidence to prove the nass of the defendant in 2011, the latter chose not to
attend the hearing or sit in the witness box. In light of this, the claim by the
plaintiffs’ counsel that an adverse inference could be drawn was not valid.
The bench sought to know why the plaintiff had made a specific reference to
1988 and said that the behaviour of the defendant and his brothers had
changed towards the original plaintiff. He asked the defendants’ counsel to
address the issue during their submissions.
Thereafter, senior advocates Fredun Di’Vitre and Janak Dwarkadas for the
defendant started with the overview of arguments. While making submissions
on why the original plaintiff announced the conferment of nass on him only
after the demise of the 52nd Dai, Di’Vitre submitted that he did so, as he
knew that his claim could not be refuted. He added that the original plaintiff
had tried to build up a premise of the defendant and his brothers being hostile
to him and keep him from attaining the highest rank in the community, but
that was not the case.
At this point, the bench sought to know that in light of the claims of hostility
by the original plaintiff, whether the acts of reverence from 1965 to 1988 by
the defendant and his brothers towards him was a camouflage, and if it was
not so, who were the ones scheming against the original plaintiff.
The defence counsel added that there were many instances of change in the
nass of succession in the past and cited the appointments of the 50th Dai and

24
the 4th Dai as examples. He stated that as per the accepted norms by the
community, just as the first appointment was divinely inspired, the
subsequent change was also divinely inspired.
In the absence of doctrinal clarity on the issue of nass, Justice Patel said he
would not pass a judgement and expected the doctrine on the issue to be
made clear.

7.7 ‘Special gifts’ don’t indicate conferment of nass, says

defence counsel
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Dec 08, 2022 11:20 PM IST
Mumbai: The counsels for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on
Thursday refuted the claim that the special gifts bestowed by the 52nd
Dai on original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin in 1965 was an
indication of conferment of nass. They also rebutted the claim that the
plaintiff was asked to keep the nass a secret due to the possible threat
to his life and the hostility of his brothers.
Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (L) and spiritual leader
of Dawoodi Bohra Muslims, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (R) attend a
meeting in Colombo on September 10, 2019. - Some 25,000 Bhoras
from around the world gather for a 10-day long religious ceremonies
led by their spiritual leader Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. (Photo by
ISHARA S. KODIKARA / AFP) (AFP)

25
The counsels submitted that throughout the alleged period of
animosity, the relations between the original plaintiff and his brothers
were cordial. The brothers from whom the 52nd Dai had allegedly
intended to safeguard Syedna Qutbuddin were held in high esteem by
the deceased leader as well as the plaintiff himself, as he had married
his daughters to their sons.
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre, along with senior counsels Iqbal
Chagla and Janak Dwarkadas, informed Justice Gautam Patel that when
the original plaintiff announced his succession in January 2014 after the
demise of the leader, only his children had given their ‘misaaq’
(acceptance of leadership)—even his siblings had not, including three of
his sisters who the plaintiff claimed had given misaaq.
The bench was then told about the alleged conferment of nass on
December 10, 1965. Syedna Qutbuddin and his son Syedna Taher
Fakhruddin had stated that the bestowal of special gifts belonging to
the 51st Dai—a Quran, rosary and ring—were an indication of
conferment of nass. However, Di’Vitre informed the bench that this
was not an accepted ritual in the community and hence the claim was
not valid.
The plaintiff had claimed that the gifts and the 52nd Dai’s statement
(“Brother, you have to continue serving the Da’wa in the same rank as
me”) indicated that he was being made the maazoon (second in
command) and mansoos (one on whom nass of succession is
conferred), as those were the ranks that the 52nd Dai occupied in the
lifetime of the 51st Dai.
Di’Vitre, however, submitted that when the 52nd Dai’s succession was
announced in 1935 by his father, it was stated publicly that he would be
both maazoon and mansoos. The plaintiff, in contrast, was announced
as only maazoon in the 52nd Dai’s public sermon, hence could not claim
26
that the word ‘rank’ used by the 52nd Dai meant both maazoon and
mansoos.
Justice Patel then sought to know about the claim of the original
plaintiff about the hate campaign, the attempt to eliminate him and the
reign of terror by the defendant. Di’Vitre referred to the examination,
cross-examination and affidavit of both the original plaintiff and his son
to show that they admitted that the brothers, particularly the elder
brother of Syedna Qutbuddin, Shehzada Yusuf Najmuddin, was held in
high esteem by the 52nd Dai and even themselves, and hence his being
a threat was only a perception of the plaintiff which was not
corroborated factually.

7.8 Syedna succession case: The woman who introduced the

Dai system in the Bohra faith
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 11, 2022 12:39 AM IST

Mumbai: The Syedna succession case hearing in the Bombay high court has
brought to light a unique aspect of the leadership regimen of the Dawoodi
Bohra community. While the community believes in 21 divinely appointed
Imams, the system of appointing the Dai or Syedna was started after the 21st
Imam al-Tayyib went into seclusion as a toddler due to the threat to his life.
The Dai system was started on the instructions of the 20th Imam through a
woman known as Hurratul Malika—the ruler of a Fatimid vassal kingdom in
Yemen, who also held the spiritual rank of ‘hujjat’ of the Imam. She was the
first to be informed by the 20th Imam through a Sijill-ul-isharat (letter of
appointment) that Al-Tayyib would be the next Imam. This missive is a
foundational document for the Dawoodi Bohras.
27
When news of the assassination of the 20th Imam became known, his cousin
from Cairo had claimed to be the next Imam. However Hurratul Malika who
knew about the next Imam used her position in the community to reject the
claimant and denounced him. Hurratul Malika then began the system of
appointing Dais who would receive divine inspiration from the secluded
Imam with regard to affairs of the community and nominating the successor
of the Dai. Due to the vital contribution of Hurratul Malika, she holds a very
revered position in the community even today.
The reference to Hurratul Malika had come up on Day 4 of the final hearing
of the Syedna succession case, which is being heard in the Bombay high
court by Justice Gautam Patel. Senior counsel Anand Desai representing
Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, while making submissions on historical inferences
of nass (appointment of successor by divine inspiration from Imam uz
Zaman), had referred to the appointment of the 21st Imam.
Desai submitted that the ‘Sijil’ written by the 20th Imam to Hurratul Malika
informing her of the birth of his son, Al-Tayyib, who would be the Imam
after him, was a sufficient proof of nass of Imamate being conferred on the
21st Imam. The submission was made to fortify the claim that a
communication of a Dai to a third person of conferring nass on his successor
sufficed to prove the successorship.
According to historical references, after the demise of the 20th Imam in
Egypt, Hurratul Malika, whose real name was was Arwā bint Aḥmad ibn
Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Mūsā aṣ-Ṣulayḥī, got the allegiance of followers
for the 21st Imam and continued the work of the Tayyibi Da’wa (call or
invitation to religion by the followers of Al-Tayyib) in Yemen and also sent
propagators of the Tayyibi Da’wa to India.

28
She had, in fact, sent propagators to India during the lifetime of the 18th
Imam, who had also given her charge of the Yemeni Da’wa. However,
following the demise of the 20th Imam, after the community was split into
followers of Imam Al-Tayyib and the claimant Abd al Majid Hafiz, the
Da’wa in India was named the Tayyibi Da’wa, which continues even today
among members of the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Before her death at the age of 90 years, Hurratul Malika appointed Dhuayb
ibn Musa al-Wadi as the first Dai al-Mutlaq of the Ṭayyibi Da’wa. This was
the beginning of the system of Dai or Syedna, community leaders who were
appointed through the divine inspiration of the secluded Imam.
Ḥurratul Malika was born in 1048 AD and was raised by her relatives, the
first Ṣulayhid king, Ali Muḥammad al-Ṣulayhi, and his wife Ḥurra Asma.
Hurratul Malika married their son, Malik al-Mukarram. After the death of the
king, al-Mukarram succeeded to the throne and Hurratul Malika aided him in
governance. However, after al-Mukarram suffered a paralytic stroke, she
became the de facto ruler and her name was mentioned along with that of her
husband during Friday sermons.
The queen ruled as a regent for her young son for a year, but after his death
ruled the kingdom in her own name and also continued the work of
promoting the Yemeni Da’wa and later the Tayyibi Da’wa. During her six-
decade-long reign, she unified squabbling tribal leaders under the Ṣulayhid
banner. However, after her demise in 1138 AD, the Sulayhid dynasty came to
an end in Yemen.

29
 7.9 ‘Will not pass order if not convinced by doctrinal facts’
says HC
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 12, 2022 12:24 AM IST

Mumbai: In the course of the last week, the counsel for plaintiff Syedna
Taher Fakhruddin concluded his submissions on the validity of the nass
(appointment by divine inspiration of the secluded Imam) conferred upon his
father, Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, by the 52nd Dai.
The submissions dealt with four major issues: what is considered a valid
nass; whether a nass conferred in private by the Dai on his successor is
acceptable as per Dawoodi Bohra doctrines; whether nass is pre-ordained and
hence once conferred is not revocable or changeable; and whether a
subsequent nass is valid.

The Bombay high court bench of Justice Gautam Patel, which has been
hearing the case since 2014 when the suit was initiated by Syedna Qutbuddin,
said that if both parties failed to convince the bench of the doctrinal facts of
nass, he would not pass any judgement in the case.
After Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, the son of the 52nd Dai Syedna
Mohammad Burhanddin, took over the administration of the community as
the 53rd Dai on the demise of his father in January 2014, Syedna Qutbuddin
initiated a civil suit in the HC in April 2014 claiming that he had been named
as the successor by the deceased leader in December 1965 and was the 53rd
Dai. The HC conducted a trial for eight years, wherein Syedna Qutbuddin
first deposed as a witness. On his demise, his son Syedna Fakhruddin
continued the suit. He informed the HC that as his father had conferred nass
on him during his lifetime, he was contesting the suit as the 54th Dai.

30
On the issue of what constitutes a valid nass, senior advocate Anand Desai,
representing Syedna Fakhruddin, informed the bench that nass was a divinely
inspired action of the Dai, and he alone was the recipient of the inspiration
from the secluded Imam. Desai submitted that once the Dai named someone
openly or informed him in private about his succession, it was considered a
valid nass—there was no need for a direct witness, and a public proclamation
of the successor or the Dai informing someone of his successor was
considered a valid nass.
Desai informed the bench that there were many instances in the history of the
Dawoodi Bohra community wherein nass conferred both openly and in
private were accepted. Desai cited the examples of the 13th Imam and the
21st Imam to prove that their appointments were not publicly announced but
were accepted.
When Justice Patel sought to know what material there was historically and
doctrinally where conferment and communication had not been not proved,
Desai referred to the actions of men of higher spiritual learning. He pointed
out that after 1965, family members and men of higher spiritual learning had
started prostrating before Syedna Qutbuddin and also referred to him as
Maula whenever the 51st and 52nd Dais were referred to as Bewe
Maula (both masters/leaders). Hence, though a public proclamation was not
done of Syedna Qutbuddin’s nass, it was understood that he was the next Dai
and hence was offered the same acts of reverence that were offered to the
52nd Dai.
However, the bench said that as acts of prostration and addressing the
‘mansoos’ (successor) as Maula was not exclusive to the highest ranking

31
officials of the community, what other evidence could be relied upon to prove
that the nass conferred on Syedna Qutbuddin was valid?
The bench was informed that as nass was pre-ordained, once the Dai
conferred it on someone, it could not be changed or revoked. In the event of
the named successor passing away during the lifetime of the Dai, he was
considered to have attained a position in heaven where he continued his
service of the Da’wa.
To buttress this, Desai cited the example of the sixth Imam who passed away
in the lifetime of his father who had named him as the next Imam after
him. Desai submitted that though the sixth Imam died before taking office,
the Dawoodi Bohra faith accepted him as their Imam and his son as his
successor.
The bench was also informed about the appointment of the fourth and fifth
Dais wherein the third Dai had intended to appoint the fifth Dai as his
immediate successor but had changed his decision before announcing it and
named his son as the fourth Dai. Thereafter, the person intended as successor
by the third Dai was named as the fifth Dai by the fourth Dai.
On the issue of revocation of nass, Desai submitted that it was accepted that
the Dai was infallible. As the post of Dai was divinely ordained, it could not
be changed as it would mean that the Dai had erred, which was not possible.
Due to the ambiguity in the doctrinal aspect of nass in the Dawoodi Bohra
faith, Justice Patel said that he would not “hazard a guess” and would refrain
from passing any order if both parties failed to show clarity on the concept.
The arguments by the plaintiff lasted for seven days and concluded on
Wednesday, December 7, after which the counsels for defendant Syedna
Saifuddin, who included senior advocates Iqbal Chagla, Fredun Di’Vitre and

32
Janak Dwarkadas, began refuting the claims made by the plaintiffs. The
hearing of the case will go on till December 23, by which date both parties
have been directed to complete their arguments, counter-arguments and
rejoinders.

.
7.10 Honorifics and flowery words not an indication of nass,
says defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 13, 2022 12:56 AM IST

Mumbai: On the tenth day of the Syedna succession case in the

Bombay high court, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel refuted the
claim that special words and acts bestowed by family members and
persons of higher learning on Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin after
December 1965 were indicators of them perceiving that nass or
succession had been conferred upon him. The counsel submitted that
community members on the whole were given to using flowery
language while addressing one another in their letters.
The HC bench, however, stressed that both parties needed to
concentrate on proving or disproving whether nass was actually
conferred on the original plaintiff by the 52nd Dai on December 10,
1965.
Senior counsel Fredun Di’Vitre for Syedna Saifuddin commenced
arguments by refuting the submissions by Syedna Taher Fakhruddin’s
counsel, Anand Desai, that the behaviour of the defendant and his
33
brothers had changed towards Syedna Qutbuddin in 1988. Di’Vitre
informed the bench that on the contrary, the defendant had accorded
the respect due to the maazoon during his marriage to the original
plaintiff’s daughter.
At this point, Justice Gautam Patel noted that there were three distinct
periods between 1965 and 2014 which needed to be addressed
separately to ascertain whether the nass conferred privately on the
original plaintiff had actually occurred. The three periods were from
1965 to 1988, 1989 to 2011 and 2011 to 2014. Justice Patel asked
Di’Vitre to start from the first period.
While referring to the sermon of the 52nd Dai on December 10, 1965,
where he addressed the original plaintiff as ‘my beloved son’, Di’Vitre
submitted that it was the usual practice of the Dai to refer to people as
‘beloved son’, as he was considered the father of the entire community.
The inference by the plaintiff that ‘beloved son’ implied spiritual son on
whom nass had been conferred was mere speculation, as only the 52nd
Dai could actually clarify what he meant.
The bench was further informed that honorifics and expressions like
maula, sajda and the use of words like ‘May your life be long’, were not
restricted to the Dai and his successor but was used for others too.
Di’Vitre made specific reference to letters written by the 51st and 52nd
Dais to others, as well as letters from others to the family of the 52nd
Dai, to show that even those persons who did not hold any rank were
addressed as Maula, ‘Coolness of the eyes of Imam’ and other
sobriquets.
The defence counsel also referred to the letter written by the
defendant and his brother to the original plaintiff after December 1965,
wherein the original plaintiff was offered sajda and was addressed as
Aqa and Maula, and was told that the brothers were greatly impressed
34
by his rank. Di’Vitre informed the bench that the honorifics were used
as a sign of respect, as Syedna Qutbuddin was their tutor for almost 10
years.
Di’Vitre also submitted that written or physical sajda was not specific to
any person, and as per answers from the witnesses, it was seen that the
original plaintiff was being offered physical sajda even before he was
named as maazoon (second-in- command) in December 1965.
Further, he said, some defence witnesses and family members had also
said that they had not been doing physical sajda to the original plaintiff
both before and after 1988; hence, the allegation that there was a
change in the behaviour of the defendant and his brother after 1988
also could not be proved.

7.11 Treatise written by 1st Dai states that Nass requires

witnesses: defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 14, 2022 12:51 AM IST

Mumbai: The counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on Tuesday

informed the Bombay high court that as per the tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra
faith, the confirmation of nass definitely required witnesses though views on
the number of witnesses might differ, as texts in this regard simply said
“persons”. However, the claim of original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima
Qutbuddin—that he was the witness of the nass conferred on him by the 52nd
Dai on December 10, 1965—would be stretching the interpretation of the
word “persons”.
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre representing defendant Syedna Saifuddin
further refuted the claim of the original plaintiff that the letter and alamat
(bestowal of a Quranic verse) by the 51st Dai on him were an instruction to
the 52nd Dai to appoint him as his successor. Di’Vitre submitted that if that
35
were the case, the 52nd Dai would have been made aware of it by his
predecessor, but there was no evidence to show this.
Replying to the oft-asked question by Justice Gautam Patel on what
according to the Dawoodi Bohra faith constituted a valid nass, Di’Vitre
informed the bench of the risala (treatise) of the first Dai which was written
by him based on the instructions of the 19th Imam. The treatise stated that
every Dai had to appoint a successor in his lifetime in the presence of a group
of persons of the Da’wa who would be witnesses to the appointment. The
bench was told that the instructions had been followed by all the later Dais,
and the 51st Dai had also emphasised it in his own risala.

Di’Vitre said that apart from witnesses, an announcement of succession had

to be clear and unambiguous like the Holy Prophet’s appointment of Ali as
his successor in the incident of Ghadeer-e-Khum. He submitted that the
Prophet had conferred nass on Ali by stating, ‘Of whomsoever I am Master,
this Ali is his Master’, which was an unequivocal declaration that Ali was his
successor.
The senior counsel briefly dealt with the other question repeatedly asked by
Justice Patel: Why did the original plaintiff, who believed that he had been
conferred nass by his predecessor in December 1965, remain silent after June
6, 2011, when the succession of the defendant, Syedna Saifuddin, was
announced in Saifee Masjid?
Di’Vitre referred to the examination and cross-examination of the original
plaintiff where he had stated that he remained silent as he was in ‘taqiyya’
(precautionary silence). However, Di’Vitre informed the bench that the
explanation did not hold, as taqiyya was observed only when a religious
belief was under threat.
Di’Vitre also referred to the plaintiff’s refutation of the translation of texts
relied upon by the defendant. The counsel said that though both sides
accepted the books, they differed on the meaning and interpretation. To this,
36
Justice Patel remarked that if that was the case, the court would have to reject
the evidence of both sides.

7.12 HC extends time for final hearing to decide on issues of

nass
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 15, 2022 12:21 AM IST

Mumbai: As the final hearing in the Syedna succession case entered its 12th
day, given the magnitude of evidences and documents to be argued by both
sides, the Bombay high court bench extended the hearing to January. Justice
Gautam Patel had earlier set a deadline for both parties to conclude
arguments and rejoinders by December 23.

Last week, Justice Patel had declared that he would not pass a judgement if
the doctrinal aspect of nass was not clarified by both sides. However, on
Wednesday, he said that given the gravity of the issue, he would be passing
orders on what constituted a valid nass, whether a private nass without
witnesses was acceptable and whether a nass, once conferred, could be
revoked. He said that passing orders on all three issues was necessitated, as
he did not want an appeal court to revert the case to him, as it would require
hearing the case all over again. Justice Patel said the hearing would be held
from January 11 onwards on a day-to-day basis at 4.30pm.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime,
anywhere. Explore now!

Meanwhile, senior counsel Fredun Di’Vitre for Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin

continued from where he had left off on Tuesday on the issue of whether the
Dawoodi Bohra faith and tenets permitted dispensing with witnesses for a
37
valid nass. The bench was informed that there were two types of nass, namely
nass-e-khafi (private or secret nass) and nass-e-jali (explicit and clear nass).
Di’Vitre submitted that previous Dais had said that nass-e-khafi was
permitted, provided there were the minimum number of witnesses required
by Sharia law. However, the conferee himself being a witness was not valid.
Di’Vitre further refuted the arguments of plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin
about there being instances of a Dai being conferred with private nass which
was accepted by the community. He stated that the circumstances were
different, as there was no one at the time who had been conferred with a nass-
e-jali and hence the Dai was accepted as the mansoos (successor) by the
community.
The refutation was with regard to the succession of the eighth Dai, who had
been conferred nass by his predecessor who expired before the nass could be
made known to the community. The plaintiff’s counsel, senior advocate
Anand Desai, had informed the bench that since the nass was private and
there were no witnesses, the eighth Dai had put forward questions to persons
of higher spiritual learning. When they expressed their inability to answer
these, he had given the replies, after which he had announced his
appointment by the seventh Dai, and community members had accepted his
succession.
Desai informed the bench that the 52nd Dai had referred to this incident in
his sermon and had even mentioned the treatise titled ‘Kitabal Idaah wal
Bayan’ which was written by the eighth Dai, Syedna Husain, wherein he had
written the answers to the questions he had posed to the people of higher
spiritual learning.

38
Di’Vitre then again referred to the incident of Ghadeer-e-Khum, wherein the
Holy Prophet had appointed Ali as his successor by using the words ‘Of
whosoever I am Maula, this Ali is his Maula’. Di’Vitre said that it was an
explicit and clear communication to the multitudes who were present that Ali
was the Imam after the Prophet. The senior counsel stated that it was a nass-
e-jali and just because the Prophet had not used the words ‘my successor’, it
did not warrant the comparison by the plaintiffs of an implied nass on Syedna
Qutbuddin.

7.13 Nass is like a will, needs to be corroborated: Defendant

ByK A Y Dodhiya
Dec 16, 2022 12:29 AM IST
Senior counsel Fredun Di’Vitre for defendant Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin, informed Justice Gautam Patel that another important factor
for a valid nass was tawqeef (confirmation by witnesses). Submitting
that this was based on the verses of the Qur’an
Mumbai: Arguments in the Syedna succession case in the Bombay high
court reached another decisive point after the defendants submitted
that the need for witnesses in a nass could not be dispensed with as per
the tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra faith. The defendants cited the
famous case of Sulaiman, the claimant to the 27th Daiship, which was
tried in the court of Emperor Akbar in the 16th century. The bench was
told that while rejecting Sulaiman’s claim of having being appointed the
Dai based on a letter purportedly written by the 26th Dai, Akbar’s

39
ministers had held that as the letter was not corroborated by any
witnesses, his claim could not be allowed.
Senior counsel Fredun Di’Vitre for defendant Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin, informed Justice Gautam Patel that another important factor
for a valid nass was tawqeef (confirmation by witnesses). Submitting
that this was based on the verses of the Qur’an, he referred to a verse
in Chapter 5 which says that ‘the will be witnessed by two witnesses’ to
show that the established laws mandated the need for witnesses.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime,
anywhere. Explore now!
Di’Vitre then said that nass was akin to a will, as the Dai had to appoint
his successor as a divine duty in his lifetime, and referred to a verse that
says, ‘It is decreed for you that when death approaches one of you, if
he leaves property, he shall write a will.’ Di’Vitre said that in light of the
above, a Dai was bound to appoint his successor and have the
appointment confirmed by witnesses.
The defence counsel also placed passages of the book written by the
20th Imam before the court, wherein it was emphasised that nass had
to be confirmed by witnesses, and remarked that though plaintiff
Syedna Taher Fakhruddin had accepted the book, he seemd to have a
different view on the necessity of having witnesses. He was referring to
Syedna Fakhruddin’s cross-examination where he had said that the
20th Imam was prompted to emphasise the need for witnesses on
account of the prevailing circumstances at the time when the Imamate
of the 19th Imam was disputed between brothers Mustali and Nizari.
The bench was then informed about the case of Sulaiman bin Hasan
who was the grandson of the 24th Dai. After the demise of the 26th
Dai, Sulaiman had given ‘misaaq’ (allegiance) to the 27th Dai but three

40
years later, had claimed to be the successor of the 26th Dai based on a
letter written by the latter to him conferred nass.
As this claim threatened to cause discord in the community, it was
referred to Emperor Akbar’s court. After seeing the letter purportedly
written by the 26th Dai, the ministers noted that the sanctity of any
document could be accepted only if it was corroborated by witnesses,
and as the letter shown by Sulaiman had none, it could not be
accepted.
Di’Vitre submitted that whenever there was nass, there had to be
tawqeef, without which nass could not be accepted. He also refuted the
claim of the plaintiff that nass and tawqeef were synonymous. When
asked to clarify whether both nass and tawqeef had to be done
simultaneously, and whether tawqeef could be done privately or had to
be done publicly, Di’Vitre said that it could be done separately but it
was needed in both public and private nass.

7.14 Witnesses necessary even for private nass, says defence

counsel
ByKAY Dodhiya , Mumbai
Dec 20, 2022 12:37 AM IST
On the 14th day of the hearing in the Bombay high court, defendant
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel refuted the past instances of
private nass submitted by the plaintiffs to prove that the nass conferred
on Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin in December 1965 was accepted
practice.
Counsel Fredun Di’Vitre informed Justice Gautam Patel that in the
instances cited by the counsel, the authoritative books relied on by
41
both sides had mentioned that all these nass were accompanied by
tawqeef (confirmation by witnesses). As per the tenets of the faith, he
submitted, nass had to be accompanied by tawqeef in order to be valid.
The counsel then referred to six instances of private nass (relied on by
the plaintiffs), among them the appointment of Asif bin Barkhiya by
Prophet Sulaiman and the appointment of the eighth Dai by the
seventh Dai.
In the case of Prophet Sulaiman appointing Barkhiya, Di’Vitre submitted
that it was stated in the authoritative books of the Dawoodi Bohras that
the appointment was conveyed to the latter in the presence of four
nuqaba (very close aides of the Prophet). Similarly, the eighth Dai was
named as successor in the presence of witnesses but just to ensure that
no one had any doubt, he had posed questions to the people of higher
learning which he answered himself after they expressed their inability
to do so.
The bench was told that even though the plaintiff had relied upon a
sermon of the 52nd Dai wherein he had said that private nass was
acceptable, Di’Vitre submitted that the spiritual leader had added that
it had to have witnesses.
In the last part of the hearing, senior defence advocate Janak
Dwarkadas, submitted a summary of the events after June 4, 2011,
when news of the 52nd Dai being admitted to a hospital in London was
announced till his demise in January 2014. Dwarkadas informed the
bench that the plaintiffs had used strong words to describe the health
condition of the 52nd Dai and had employed the word ‘coterie’ for the
defendant and his brothers to show that they had managed the
conferment of nass on Syedna Saifuddin by the former Dai though he
was not in good health.

42
Dwarkadas further informed the bench that the ruse was probably
adopted by the plaintiff to play down the four instances wherein the
52nd Dai had conferred nass on the defendant in unambiguous terms.
The bench was told that in January 1969, the 52nd Dai had conferred
nass on Syedna Saifuddin for the first time in the presence of witnesses.
The second instance was in November 2005 and the third and fourth
instances were on June 6, 2011, and June 20, 2011.
The counsel submitted that despite such clear instances, the plaintiffs
were denying the nass as also the views of the defendant’s witnesses
who confirmed the four instances of nass. He informed the bench that
he would not only give details of the four events but would also show
that the December 1965 event claimed by the plaintiff probably did not
happen.

7.15 1969 nass on defendant was also confidential but had

three witnesses
Dec 21, 2022 12:18 AM IST
Mumbai: Even as the Bombay high court is trying to ascertain whether
a secret nass of succession was conferred upon original plaintiff Syedna
Khuzaima Qutbuddin by the 52nd Dai in December 1965, defendant
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel informed the bench that the nass
conferred upon him in January 1969 was also kept secret but had three
witnesses.
These witnesses, Justice Gautam Patel was informed, had made a note
of the event in their personal journals, which were used to prove the
validity of the nass. The 52nd Dai had also handed over a treatise to his

43
two sons in 2005 by which they knew that Syedna Saifuddin would be
the next Dai.
Narrating the events surrounding the conferment, senior counsel Janak
Dwarkadas said that the 52nd Dai had given a sermon on the evening of
January 27, 1969, a day prior to his departure for Hajj. After the
sermon, he retired to his personal chamber. However, at around 1 am,
he summoned his personal secretary Ebrahim Yamani. Abdul Hussain
Tambawala, a businessman, and Abdul Qadir, father-in-law of one of
the Dai’s sons, were also present.
Dwarkadas submitted that on the instructions of the Dai, Yamani made
an entry in a notebook, which was in the custody of the spiritual leader,
which said that he was conferring nass on his son, Mufaddal Saifuddin.
The Dai then made some corrections and put his signature below the
statement.
The bench was informed that the notebook was inspected by the
plaintiffs’ counsels when it was first produced during the trial. But
though the plaintiffs had cast doubts on the authenticity of both the
handwriting of Yamani and the signature of the 52nd Dai, they had not
given any evidence to prove their claim of it being unreliable.
Apart from the notebook entry, Yamani, who had started maintaining a
daily journal after 1965, had also made a note of the conferment in his
journal, and Tambawala had noted it in his calendar dairy. Both were
made available to the defendant by the community repository after the
June 2011 announcement of nass. Dwarkadas submitted that in all
there were 11 documents and oral evidence which corroborated the
1969 nass.

44
The bench was informed that though the nass was conferred in January
1969, the 52nd Dai had instructed the witnesses to keep it confidential,
and hence they did not disclose it to anyone.
While replying to the objection of the plaintiffs that if nass had been
conferred on the defendant in 1969, why it was done again in
November 2005 and twice in June 2011, Dwarkadas submitted that in
2005, the 52nd Dai had informed only his sons, Shehzadas Qaid Johar
and Malekul Ashtar, who were also told to keep it confidential.
However, in June 2011, after the Dai’s hospitalisation, Qaid Johar
informed the defendant and his family and said that the leader had
done nass previously as well.
At this point, Justice Patel sought to know why the 1969 nass of the
defendant, who was the son of the 52nd Dai, was kept a secret, and if
there were witnesses to it, what their conduct towards the defendant
was thereafter. Dwarkadas replied that the reason behind the secrecy
could be known only to the 52nd Dai but the fact that he had asked the
witnesses to keep it confidential could be the reason for their ‘normal’
behaviour towards the defendant after 1969. The plaintiffs had pointed
out that there was no change in conduct by the witnesses towards the
defendant after the alleged nass in January 1969, and hence the claim
could not be accepted.

7.16 HC questions plaintiff and defendant on silence of nass

conferred on them
ByK A Y Dodhiya
22 Dec 22, 2022 12:30 AM IST

45
Mumbai: The Bombay high court bench on the 16th day of the final
hearing questioned both the plaintiff and the defendant on their silence
after being aware of nass being conferred on them.
While the defence counsel was asked why the original plaintiff, Syedna
Khuzaima Qutbuddin, had remained silent after June 4, 2011, when
news of nass being conferred on the defendant was announced,
defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin was asked about his silence from
2009 when his father, the 52nd Dai, showed him the notebook wherein
the nass of 1969 had been recorded.
Senior defence counsel Janak Dwarkadas commenced arguments by
stating that the plaintiffs were questioning the veracity of the defence
witnesses and documents that proved the nass rather than challenging
the nass itself, as it would imply that the 52nd Dai was fallible.
The senior counsel drew this conclusion since the plaintiff had
remained silent when the Zaat al Noor risala (treatise) of the 52nd Dai
was released along with a risala of the 51st Dai on August 19, 2011. The
risala of the 52nd Dai had mentioned the nass conferred upon the
defendant in 2005 and 1969 and was released in his presence as well as
that of the original plaintiff who was the maazoon (second in
command). Dwarkadas submitted that after the suit was filed, the
plaintiff in his skeletal arguments had said that he was unaware of the
contents of the risala at the time.
When the court asked the plaintiff to explain his silence thereafter,
senior counsel Anand Desai stated that another document was also
released, the contents of which did not conform to the contents of the
52nd Dai’s risala. Desai assured the court that he would deal with it
during the rejoinder.

46
When the court asked Dwarkadas the reason behind the June 2011
disclosure of the nass done in 1969 and 2005, which the 52nd Dai had
told the witnesses to announce only after his demise, the senior
counsel stated that it was done on the instructions of the 52nd Dai.
Dwarkadas then debunked the claim of the plaintiff that he was
unaware of the nass conferred on the defendant in 1969 and 2005. The
bench was informed that in an audio recording of June 4, 2011, the
daughter of the original plaintiff had told him of the nass conferred on
the defendant. In the same recording, Shehzada Qaid Johar was also
heard mentioning an earlier nass being conferred on the defendant.
The HC, while cautioning both sides regarding the disclosures they
made in the case, said that he would decide the case only in light of
Section 114 and 115 of the Evidence Act. “The issue of nass is a matter
of faith,” he said. “It is not for me to tell someone that their faith is
right or wrong, as there is nothing like right or wrong in faith. I do not
want to unwittingly be part of acrimony in the community. Whatever
the outcome of the suit, I hope members move on harmoniously
thereafter.”

7.17 52nd Dai’s cognition not affected by 2011 stroke:

Defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 23, 2022 01:12 AM IST.

Mumbai: Defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel, while revealing

details of the medical condition of the 52nd Dai after he was admitted to a
London hospital on June 1, 2011, informed the Bombay high court that
doctors had said that the spiritual leader had problems swallowing but his
cognitive abilities remained unaffected.
47
The senior counsel made the submissions to refute the claim of the plaintiff
that after suffering the stroke, the 52nd Dai was so incapacitated that he could
not have conferred a nass of succession on the defendant on June 4 and June
20. The plaintiff’s claim was based on medical records of the Dai’s
hospitalisation.

Senior defence counsel Janak Dwarkadas submitted that scans taken at the
hospital revealed that the 52nd Dai had suffered a pontine stroke between
May 30 and June 1. He recovered after he was treated but was unable to
swallow and had slurred speech.
Dwarkadas referred to the examination of consulting neurologist Dr Omar
Malik and consulting respiratory physician Dr John Costello, who were part
of the hospital team. The counsel said that both these defence witnesses,
during their examination by the plaintiffs’ counsel Anand Desai, had said that
the stroke had debilitated the 52nd Dai physically but his mental faculties
were unaffected and he responded to their queries albeit in a deferred manner.

Dwarkadas also informed the bench of the visit of the speech and language
therapist on June 2 to ascertain whether the leader could take food or liquids.
He submitted that though the therapist had stated in her report that the stroke
had caused a neurological impact, she was not an expert on neurology. It was
in light of her report and other medical evaluations that the plaintiffs had
concluded that the Dai could not have conferred nass on the defendant on
June 4 and neither could he have consumed sherbet in the hospital as claimed
by family members.
However, Dwarkadas submitted that as per hospital records and doctors’
statements, the 52nd Dai was fully aware of what was happening around him
and hence the alleged contradictions were sufficiently taken care of.

48
With regard to the allegation by the plaintiffs that despite the Dai’s infirmity,
the defendant and his brothers had brought him back to Mumbai on June 20,
2011, so that he was present at the Raudat Tahera shrine, Dwarkadas said it
was done on the instructions of the leader himself. Although the doctors were
unwilling to discharge the Dai, on his insistence they held consultations and
only agreed to discharge him thereafter. The event was the death anniversary
of the 51st Dai and the 52nd Dai did not want to miss it as he had been
attending it ever since it began. Dwarkadas submitted that the Dai was
brought to Mumbai in an air ambulance only after ensuring that there would
be no danger to his health.

7.18 52nd Dai’s cognition was not impaired on day of nass:

defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 23, 2022 11:49 PM IST

Mumbai: Relying on the deposition by consulting neurologist Dr

Omar Malik and consulting respiratory physician Dr John Costello who
treated the 52nd Dai in Cromwell Hospital, London, after his
stroke, senior defence counsel Janak Dwarkadas informed the Bombay
high court that though the Dai had problems swallowing food and
speaking, he had responded to queries by the doctors and was alert,
coherent and aware of what was happening around him.
The counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin also reiterated
the doctors’ denial of the second speech and language therapist’s
report which stated that the lip and tongue movements of the Dai were
affected due to the stroke. Citing one of the doctors who stated that on
the evening of June 4, 2011, the Dai had responded to him with a smile

49
and a hello, the counsel said it was perfectly possible for the spiritual
head to confer nass on the defendant half an hour later.
He then referred to the 8.20 pm note of the nurse—which said the
patient was alert and communicative—to prove that the Dai was in fine
cognitive health since the visit by the doctor, conferment of nass and
even after that. Dwarkadas informed the bench that the audio clips of
the 52nd Dai, wherein he is heard conferring nass on the defendant,
were available and would be played before the court to show that he
was in a position to speak coherently.

Before playing the clips, Dwarkadas told the bench of Dr Costello’s visit to
the room of the 52nd Dai at around 7.30 pm, at which time the doctor was
“impressed” by the improvement in the Dai’s condition. The counsel then
said that around 8 pm, the Dai had called three of his sons and said he was
appointing Mufaddal bhai to the Rutba of Dawat and appointing him the 53rd
Dai. The leader also told his family ‘Sagdao ne khabar kari dyo’ (Inform
everyone about this) twice.
The bench was told that although the 52nd Dai had said these words
coherently, the plaintiffs had placed reliance on the observation of the speech
and language therapist and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to conclude that
the 52nd Dai was not oriented enough to confer nass on June 4, 2011.
Dwarkadas submitted that the GCS showed that the leader had a score
of 13/14 out of 15, and, as per Dr Costello, the fluctuating level of
responsiveness was due to drowsiness which, the counsel said, was expected
of a 96-year-old due to the stroke and a previous ailment. Justice Gautam
Patel then sought to know from senior counsel Anand Desai representing
plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakruddin what threshold level they expected the GCS
to be at to prove the incapacity and disorientation of the 52nd Dai.

50
After Dwarkadas played the audio clips and the bench asked for the
transcription, the counsel said there were videos of the 52nd Dai which were
taken after the conferment of nass. These, he said, would be shown during the
hearing from January 11.

7.19 First round of final arguments concluded, second round

from Jan 11
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Dec 26, 2022 12:49 AM IST

Mumbai: The final hearing of the Syedna succession case, which started on
November 28, saw defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsels make
an emphatic case before the Bombay high court that witnesses were required
for confirming conferment of a valid nass. The original plaintiff had cited
instances of private nass to prove that the December 10, 1965 nass conferred
on him was valid, said the counsels—however, all these instances, though
private, had witnesses.

The counsels also brought up the claim by the plaintiff that the 52nd Dai was
infirm and incapacitated on June 4, 2011, and hence could not have conferred
nass on the defendant in hospital. Refuting this claim, they said the Dai’s
doctors— consulting neurologist Dr Omar Malik and consulting respiratory
physician Dr John Costello had said that the Dai was mentally sound even
after the stroke and hence there could be no doubts about the nass he had
conferred on the defendant on June 4, 2011.
On December 8, senior defence counsels Iqbal Chagla, Fredun Di’Vitre and
Janak Dwarkadas started arguments, refuting the claim of plaintiff (the late)

51
Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Syedna Qutbuddin had filed the suit in 2014 in
the HC, claiming he was the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq of the 1.5 million-strong
Dawoodi Bohra community across the world. The suit had stated that as he
was conferred nass privately by the 52nd Dai and was told to keep it
confidential. Thus, after the latter’s demise, he should have been the 53rd Dai
but the defendant had usurped the position.
On the untimely demise of Syedna Qutbuddin, his son Syedna Taher
Fakhruddin replaced him in the suit, asserting that his father, the 53rd Dai,
had conferred nass on him and hence he was the 54th Dai. While responding
to the queries of Justice Gautam Patel, senior counsel Anand Desai for the
plaintiffs had informed the bench that a private nass was accepted as a
doctrine of the community. Desai cited past instances to prove this and
reiterated that the nass conferred on Syedna Qutbuddin in December 1965
was valid though it did not any witness except himself.
Senior counsel Chagla, while giving an overview of the defendant’s
arguments, had stated that the suit was filed for fame, glory and wealth. He
said that the 52nd Dai had conferred nass on the defendant in the presence of
witnesses, and hence the claim of the plaintiff of being conferred nass
privately was not valid.
The bench was then taken through past instances of private nass by senior
counsel Di’Vitre, who said that the appointment of the fourth, eighth, 27th
and 50th Dais, which were referred to by the plaintiffs, all had witnesses. He
also informed the bench that the instance of the private appointment of
Prophet Sulaiman’s successor was also done in the presence of Nuqabas.
The counsel also debunked the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant
and his brothers had risked the life of the 52nd Dai by taking him in an air

52
ambulance from London to Mumbai on June 17, 2011. The plaintiff had
stated that the event at Raudat Tahera (the mausoleum of the 51st Dai) on
June 20, 2011, where the conferment of nass on the defendant was reiterated
by releasing a risala (treatise) by the 52nd Dai in his presence was not
required if a valid nass was conferred on June 4, 2011.
Dwarkadas submitted that the 52nd Dai was brought to Mumbai on his
insistence as he wanted to attend the Urus of the 51st Dai and said that the
Dai’s travel was cleared by the doctors treating him.
As December 23 was the last working day of the HC before the winter
vacations, Justice Patel said that hearing would continue from January 11 on
a day-to-day basis, albeit from 4.30 pm, till both parties completed their
arguments, rejoinders and surrejoinders.

8 Jan 2023
8.1 ‘Dawoodi’ Bohra name coined after 1597 verdict in Akbar’s
court
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Jan 02, 2023 12:52 AM IST

Mumbai: How did the majority Bohra community the world over come to be
known as ‘Dawoodi’ Bohras? The incident dates back to 1597 when the court
of Mughal emperor Akbar rejected a person who laid claim to the post of the
27th Dai al Mutlaq of the Bohra community three years after the demise of
the previous Dai. The rebuffed claimant was Sulaiman bin Hassan, the
grandson of the 24th Dai of the Bohra faith, while the person who was
accepted by the community as its 27th spiritual leader was Dawood
Qutubshah.

53
The Bohras, who were then known as the Ismaili Mosta’ali Tayyibi Bohras,
thereafter split into two factions. Those who followed Dawood Qutubshah
were identified as Ismaili Mosta’ali Tayyibi Dawoodi Bohras, later shortened
to Dawoodi Bohras, while those who followed Sulaiman were known as
Sulaimani Bohras.
The incident was recently placed before the Bombay high court during the
final hearing of the Syedna succession case to prove the doctrinal
requirement of having witnesses for a valid nass. The bench of Justice
Gautam Patel was informed by senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre representing
defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin that after the demise of the 26th Dai
and ascension of Syedna Qutubshah as the 27th Dai, Syedna Sulaiman had
accepted his succession. Three years later, however, he had come up with a
letter purportedly written by the 26th Dai, and claimed that a nass of
succession had been conferred on him by the predecessor during his lifetime.

Based on this, Syedna Sulaiman demanded that the Daiship of Syedna

Qutubshah be revoked and he be declared the 27th Dai. However, as Syedna
Sulaiman was unable to get the veracity of the letter corroborated by
witnesses, Akbar’s ministers rejected his claim.
After his rejection, Syedna Sulaiman, who had the support of community
members in Yemen, was accepted as the 27th Dai by them, but the majority
of community members in India continued with Syedna Dawood Qutubshah.
Syedna Sulaiman, the grandson of the 24th Dai, was born in 1554 CE. At the
time the community, which had its roots in Yemen and Egypt, was known as
the Tayyibi Bohras, a name assigned to them after Imam Tayyib, the 21st
Imam of the community. The Imam went into seclusion due to a threat to his
life after his father, the 20th Imam, was assassinated. The system of Daiship
in the community was started by Hurratul Malika, a ruler of a vassal kingdom
under the Fatimid dynasty in Yemen after the 21st Imam went into seclusion
during his childhood.
54
Syedna Sulaiman died at the age of 44 allegedly due to poisoning and was
buried in Ahmedabad, which was the centre of the Bohra community during
that period. His followers accepted the Daiship of his son Ali, and the
Daiship of the Sulaimani Bohras continued through his lineage. The Daiship
was later handed over to the Makrami family which is currently located in
Saudi Arabia.

8.2 Syedna Succession case: Nass conferred on defendant in

June 2011 corroborated by audio recording
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Jan 12, 2023 12:45 AM IST

The single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Patel, which has been hearing the suit initiated by
Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and later continued by his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, was first
informed by senior defence advocate Janak Dwarkadas about the nass conferred in 1969 by the
52nd Dai on Syedna Saifuddin

Mumbai: As final arguments in the Syedna succession case resumed in

the Bombay high court on Wednesday, defendant Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin’s counsel referred to the audio recording as well as the direct
evidence of the 52nd Dai’s grandson to disprove the plaintiff’s claim
that the June 4, 2011, conferment of nass at Cromwell hospital in
London was concocted and the handiwork of the defendant and his
coterie.

Syedna Succession case: Nass conferred on defendant in June 2011 corroborated by

audio recording

The bench was informed about the sequence of events at the hospital to
prove that the 52nd Dai was in control of his movements and cognisant
55
of what was going on around him when he conferred nass in the
presence of family members.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Patel, which has been hearing
the suit initiated by Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and later continued by
his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, was first informed by senior defence
advocate Janak Dwarkadas about the nass conferred in 1969 by the 52nd
Dai on Syedna Saifuddin.
This nass, Dwarkadas submitted, had been witnessed by three persons.
Though they were dead by the time of the trial, documents written by
them had made a mention of the nass, and those documents had been
verified by live witnesses. Dwarkadas also stated that the notebook of
the 52nd Dai, in which the conferment of the nass was noted, was also
confirmed by the documents of the deceased witnesses.
Dwarkadas then referred to the nass of November 2005 which was done
by the 52nd Dai in the presence of his two sons, Shehzada Qaid Johar
and Malekul Ashtar, to drive home the point that there were living
witnesses to the nass as well.
At this point, Justice Patel sought to know the material which the
defendant would rely upon to respond to the plaintiff’s claim that
doctrinally nass, once conferred, could not be revoked. Dwarkadas
assured the court that senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre would deal with
the issue.
He then commenced recounting the chain of events on June 4, 2011, at
Cromwell Hospital. Dwarkadas relied upon the deposition of Abdulqadir
Moiz Nooruddin, the grandson of the 52nd Dai, who was present along
with his father at Cromwell Hospital in London since the day the
erstwhile leader was admitted after suffering a stroke on June 1, 2011.
Nooruddin had stated in his deposition that on June 4, 2011, when he
reached the hospital in the afternoon, he had seen the 52nd Dai doing
namaz and reciting the Quran silently. Nooruddin had stated that though
56
the leader was weak and his voice was low and slurred, he was able to
talk and at times was repeating words to clarify what he was saying.
The deposition further stated that three of the Dai’s sons had come to
meet him but the Dai had asked them to wait and did not allow them to
leave though they had sought permission to do so. Later, at around 8 pm,
when the Dai expressed a desire to sit, he was made to sit with some
support and began praising Allah and seeking refuge.
At this point, Nooruddin stated, his father realised that the Dai was about
to make some important statement and hence directed him to start
recording, which he did on his mobile phone. Dwarkadas informed the
bench that the recording was played before the court, which Justice Patel
confirmed.
These submissions, Dwarkadas told the bench, disproved the plaintiffs’
claim that the entire incident at the hospital was concocted, as there was
direct evidence as well as the audio recording to prove that the
conferment of nass had actually happened.

8.3 Video clips of post-nass conferral on defendant played in

court
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Jan 13, 2023 12:57 AM IS
Mumbai: The 20th day of the Syedna succession case in the Bombay
high court saw the counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin
recount the events that occurred after the 52nd Dai conferred nass on
the defendant in London’s Cromwell Hospital on June 4, 2011. The
court was shown six video clips taken in the hospital wherein the 52nd

57
Dai was seen blessing the defendant and permitting his family to pay
their respects to him and the defendant after his appointment.
The court was told that the videos proved that the 52nd Dai was alert,
comprehended what was going on around him and responded
appropriately to it. This, the defence counsel submitted, disproved the
claim of the plaintiff that the Dai was so incapacitated that he could not
have conferred nass on the defendant.
Senior defence counsel Janak Dwarkadas, while continuing to recount
the events at Cromwell Hospital where the 52nd Dai had been admitted
after suffering a stroke on June 1, 2011, informed Justice Gautam Patel
that defence witness Abdulqadir Moiz Nooruddin, the grandson of the
Dai, had video-recorded the events after the conferral of nass in the
Dai’s hospital room at 8.07 pm.
Dwarkadas said that the six video clips were being relied upon, along
with the evidence and affidavits of the Dai’s doctors, to prove that the
Dai was fully conscious, alert and able to communicate with those
present.
The bench was informed that after the nass was conferred at around
8.07pm, based on the directions of the 52nd Dai, Nooruddin and his
father, and the Dai’s elder son Shehzada Qaid Johar, went to the house
of the defendant to inform him of his appointment. Nooruddin stated
that on hearing the news, the defendant sank to the floor and
expressed anxiety about the condition of his ailing father.
Thereafter, they all reached Cromwell Hospital at around 10.30 pm and
on seeing the defendant, the 52nd Dai acknowledged him by raising his
right hand. The defendant then took the blessings of his father, after
which all those present sought permission from the ailing leader to
convey their respects to both ‘Maulas’, which the leader permitted.

58
Nooruddin stated that he had been video-recording the proceedings on
his mobile phone all the while, and the 52nd Dai was heard telling Dr
Moiz: “You have taken much trouble.” After the 52nd Dai inquired for
the fourth time whether everyone had been informed of the
appointment, his sons went to the next room and started calling
community members to convey the news.
Dwarkadas submitted that apart from the audio clips of the nass, the
video recording post the conferment indicated that the 52nd Dai’s
condition was not as debilitating as the plaintiff had claimed. The
plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and later his son Syedna Taher
Fakhruddin had maintained that the 52nd Dai could not have conferred
nass while in the hospital due to the effects of the stroke which would
have left him incapable of speaking, let alone indulging in any physical
action.
Dwarkadas also referred to the depositions of Dr Omar Malik and Dr
John Costello, who treated the 52nd Dai in hospital. The two doctors
had confirmed that the person in the video was their patient, the
location was the hospital room and the voice was also that of the ailing
leader. In fact Dr Costello, after confirming that it was the 52nd Dai,
also said that based on the video, the leader was capable of conferring
nass at the time.
When Justice Patel asked whether the video recording was done
anticipating a future reaction from the plaintiff, Dwarkadas said it was a
momentous occasion and hence modern technology was used. He
further justified that at the time of conferring nass, Nooruddin had only
done audio recordings, as he was physically supporting the 52nd Dai,
but later when there were more persons in the room, he was able to
video-record the proceedings.

59
Justice Patel then noted that he expected the plaintiff’s counsel, senior
advocate Anand Desai, to disprove the evidences produced by the
defendant in his rejoinder to substantiate the claim that the entire
incident was fabricated.

8.4 Video of Dai reiterating nass on defendant at public event

played in court
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Jan 14, 2023 12:28 AM IST
Mumbai: Defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel Janak
Dwarkadas on Friday concluded recounting the events of June 4, 2011
at Cromwell Hospital, London, and informed the Bombay high court
that the nass bestowed on the defendant by the 52nd Dai had been
sufficiently proved through the depositions of defence witnesses, audio
and video recordings of the event and the events thereafter.
Dwarkadas then referred to the Deed of Affirmation and the Power of
Attorney prepared in 2012 and 2013, which bore the thumb impression
of the 52nd Dai, which the plaintiff had doubted. The senior counsel
submitted that the administrator of Saifee Hospital had issued a
certificate stating that the ailing leader was not in a position to sign,
and could only affix his thumb impression.
Dwarkadas said that though the documents had been prepared in the
presence of government officials, the plaintiff had contended that they
were prepared fraudulently by using influence. He also stated that
based on the certificate issued by Saifee Hospital, the plaintiff had
concluded that the 52nd Dai did not have the mental or physical
capacity to take any decision, but that was not the case.

60
The counsel then referred to the direct evidence of Nooruddin who had
stated that at the time of preparing the first document at Saifee Mahal,
the 52nd Dai’s hand was not steady and hence he had affixed his thumb
impression in the presence of witnesses. In the second instance, the
contents of the document were read out by Shehzada Qaid Johar to the
Dai, after which he put his thumb impression. This was done to enable
the defendant to carry out community activities which were otherwise
the prerogative of the 52nd Dai.
Based on these submissions, Dwarkadas informed the bench that the
June 4, 2011 nass was sufficiently proved, and the burden of disproving
it was now on the plaintiff.
The counsel then referred to the June 20, 2011 event at Raudat Tahera
where the 52nd Dai was brought in an ambulance from Saifee Hospital.
An abridged version of the video was played to show that the Dai had
reiterated the nass on the defendant. As the leader’s voice was not
clear, Dwarkadas requested the bench to rely on the transcripts by Dr
Moiz Nooruddin. He, however, did rely on two portions of the video
wherein the leader was heard saying ‘Mufaddal bhai ne nass nu taaj’ to
show that the conferment of nass was reiterated at the event as well.

8.5 HC asks both parties to justify claims on Dai’s condition

after stroke
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Jan 17, 2023 12:30 AM IST

Mumbai: The final hearing in the Syedna succession case reached a decisive
juncture after the Bombay high court put pointed questions to the counsels of
the plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin and the defendant Syedna Mufaddal

61
Saifuddin regarding the ability of the 52nd Dai to confer nass after he had
suffered a stroke and the flurry of activity post his hospitalisation.
The HC directed the plaintiff to justify the claim that the 52nd Dai was so
incapacitated after the stroke that he could not have conferred nass on June 4,
2011 at Cromwell Hospital or the subsequent event at Raudat Tahera. He also
asked the defendant to prove incorrect the claim of the original plaintiff that
his silence after the announcement of the nass in Cromwell Hospital was due
to the threat and high-handedness of the defendant and his coterie.
Justice Gautam Patel referred to the abridged clip of the June 20 Raudat
Tahera event, which was shown in court on Friday, and said that as the words
‘Mufaddal bhai’ and ‘nass’ spoken by the 52nd Dai were audible, what was
the stand of the plaintiff who claimed that the entire event was orchestrated?
He asked senior advocate Anand Desai whether Syedna Fakhruddin was
denying the event or alleging that it was a fabrication.

Desai replied that it was not being denied but urged the bench to hear the
video further to ascertain what happened immediately after those words were
spoken. “So your case is that though the 52nd Dai said those words, it was
not possible for him to do so as he was incapacitated due to the stroke?”
quipped Justice Patel. Desai confirmed this and said he would elaborate on it
in rejoinder.
Meanwhile, senior defence advocate Janak Dwarkadas continued his
submissions. Referring to the Raudat Tahera event, he submitted that the
52nd Dai was fully conscious of what was happening as evidenced by the fact
that when asked whether the maksoor (third in command) could occupy the
chair near him, he gestured his permission, clearly seen in the video clip.
Justice Patel sought to know from the defendant the reason behind the flurry
of activity in June 2011, which included the nass in Cromwell Hospital, the
shifting of the ill leader in an air ambulance to Mumbai and the 105-minute
event at Raudat Tahera presided over by the leader.
62
He also asked Desai whether the original plaintiff had seen the live broadcast
of the event when he was in USA on that day. Desai replied in the affirmative
and said that the audio was not clear; only after they got the edited and
abridged version of the video clip were they able to understand what was
being said.

8.6 Participation in nass announcement event, proof of

acceptance
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Jan 19, 2023 12:01 AM IST
Mumbai: In the final hearing of the Syedna succession case on
Wednesday, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel dealt with the fact
that the original plaintiff, Syedna Khuzaima Qutbudin, through his
participation in the majlis at Saifee Masjid on June 6, 2011, had given
unconditional acceptance of the nass conferred on the defendant. This
after he had not only presided over the event but also partook of the
sherbet consumed after the announcement tape was played. The
counsel stressed that considering this action of the original plaintiff, the
suit could not survive.
However, in light of the submissions by the original plaintiff that he had
remained silent through he was aware that the nass on June 4, 2011
could not have happened. The HC noted that the Original Plaintiff may
have played along in the hope that the ailing leader would have
regained his health and put things right. The HC remarked that it
expected this aspect to be argued by the plaintiff.
Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas for Syedna Saifuddin, while
commencing arguments on the 23rd day of the final hearing, started
63
dealing with the issue of the silence of Syedna Qutbuddin about the
nass conferred on him by the 52nd Dai in 1965. Dwarkadas informed
the bench that this could have been due to either of the two reasons,
namely nass was not conferred on the original plaintiff in 1965 or he
had accepted the conferral of nass on the defendant on June 4, 2011 at
the Cromwell hospital.
Referring to the event of June 6, 2011, the senior counsel told the
single judge bench of justice Gautam Patel that the majlis of June 6,
2011 was to be presided over by the mukasir (third in command). He
submitted that it was made known to the community that an important
announcement was to be made. The original plaintiff had taken it upon
himself to attend and preside over the majlis. Dwarkadas took the court
through the deposition of the original plaintiff wherein he had stated
that he attended the majlis to pray for the health of the ailing 52nd
leader and was also aware that a tape announcing the nass conferred
on the defendant would be played.
The bench was then shown photographs of the sherbet being
consumed and the original plaintiff also partaking of the sherbet, which
was given to him by the aamil of Saifee Masjid (administrator).
Dwarkadas submitted that thereafter the original plaintiff was also
felicitated by all those present on the defendant’s appointment, which
was accepted by him.
Based on the event, Dwarkadas submitted that the actions of the
original plaintiff sent out a message to the community members, the
52nd Dai and the defendant that he had accepted the appointment and
hence, the suit could not survive.
Dwarkadas then referred to two other instances after June 6, 2011,
wherein the original plaintiff and his son had openly shown their
acceptance of the defendant’s appointment namely the funeral of the
64
52nd Dais half-brother where the original plaintiff offered funeral
prayers behind the defendant and a majlis in Ujjain wherein Shehzada
Abdeali, the son of the original plaintiff had mentioned about the
appointment of the defendant as the successor of the 52nd Dai.
The bench was told that if the 1965 nass would have happened and the
claims of hostility by the defendant and his coterie were to be believed,
the original plaintiff would have taken up the issue with the 52nd Dai
after November 2005 when the leader had faced health issues.
However, the original plaintiff had at no place in his plaint or affidavit
mentioned about any initiatives taken by him to request the 52nd Dai
to take away the seal of secrecy imposed on him, hence it is possible
that the original plaintiff only disclosed about the 1965 nass conferred
on him after the demise of the 52nd Dai as he knew that his claim
would have been refuted by the leader.
In the course of submissions by Dwarkadas, justice Patel remarked that
as stated by the original plaintiff and later his son Syedna Taher
Fakhruddin, the silence could have been to avert any adverse situation
which would have arisen in the community and hence, he expected
senior advocate Anand Desai for the plaintiff to clarify this aspect in
rejoinder. Justice Patel added that he also wanted Desai to explain
whether the silence by original plaintiff though he was sure of a wrong
nass being claimed by the defendant could be justified, as doctrinally a
previous nass could not be revoked.

8.7 Syedna succession case: ‘Can a Dai tweak doctrine for the
sake of community?’
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Published on Jan 20, 2023 12:34 AM IST

65
Mumbai: The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday said the arguments and submissions made
by both sides regarding the condition of the 52nd Dai after suffering the stroke in June 2011
would have no bearing on deciding the Syedna succession case, as the HC was to decide on
whether a valid nass was conferred either on the original plaintiff or the defendant.
The court held that though the doctrine states that a nass once conferred could not be revoked
and conferral of nass could be done with or without witnesses, as the Dai was infallible and did
acts based on the inspiration from the secluded Imam and the guidance of Allah, it was possible
that he had the ability to tweak the doctrine to ensure that the faith was safeguarded.
The comments were prompted after the defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel
concluded arguments to prove that though the 52nd Dai had become infirm due to the effects
of the June 2011 stroke, he was having the capacity to discharge his duty and had done so.
This the defendant said disproved the claim of the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin
and later his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin that the leader was so incapacitated after the stroke
the he could not have conferred the nass on the defendant on June 4 at the Cromwell hospital
in London and on June 20, 2011 at Raudat Tahera in Mumbai.
Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas for Syedna Saifuddin while continuing to enumerate the
events after June 4, 2011 to show that the 52nd Dai was able to comprehend what was
happening around him and was actively discharging his duties as the leader of the community
informed the single judge bench of justice, Gautam Patel, about the events which took place
between June 2011 till the passing away of the leader in January 2014.
Dwarkadas referred to four events namely a baithak (meeting of the Dai with the senior
members of the community) in August 2011, an Urs (death anniversary commemoration) majlis
in June 2012, a banquet in Saifee Mahal in June 2012, and a baithak in January 2014 just 15
days before the passing away of the 52nd Dai to show that the leader was actively conducting
the affairs of the community as well as meeting an interacting with his family and community
members.
Dwarkadas also referred to instances of the original plaintiff and his family members seeking
‘raza’ (permission to undertake activities, seek prayers) of the 52nd Dai in the 2011 to 2014
period to prove that their acts itself showed that the leader was discharging his duty to the
community in that period.
Considering the above, the senior counsel concluded that the above instances disproved the
claim of the plaintiff that the 52nd Dai was infirm and all the acts attributed to the leader in that
period were orchestrated by the defendant and his coterie. He also submitted that the original
plaintiff had many occasions to speak to the 52nd Dai about the nass conferred on him and the

66
nass conferred on the defendant but as he had not done so, it indicated that the 1965 nass
never happened.
After hearing the conclusion, justice Patel said that the submissions and arguments on the
period between 2011 and 2014 by both sides would be inconsequential as the claims by the
plaintiff in his plaint and his examination were based on impressions and though the defendant
had disproved the claims of the plaintiff through videos, photographs and direct evidence by
witnesses, the issue of conferral of nass was not proved.
Justice Patel referred to historical instances of the community where a ‘mansoos’ was pitched
against another ‘mansoos’; however, it all happened after the passing of an Imam or a Dai. In
the instant case, he said that the silence of the original plaintiff and the acts of his family
members towards the defendant after June 2011 could have been because the family was
unaware of the secret nass of 1965, hence it would not be possible for him to decide on the
issue on those grounds.
While referring to Dai’s powers, justice Patel said that as Dai was infallible and pure it was
possible that he could tweak some doctrines for the larger benefit of the community, however,
he assumed it was only restricted to certain doctrines and not all, hence the next issue of
revocability of nass would have a bearing on the case which will be addressed by both sides
from January 30.

9 Last nass, not first one, is valid: defence

counsel
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Jan 31, 2023 01:02 AM IST

Mumbai: Defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel, during the

final hearing of the Syedna succession case in the Bombay high court,
claimed that doctrinally, nass, once conferred, could be revoked or
changed, as evidenced by the writings and actions of not only the
previous Dais but the Imams as well. The court was further told that
only the last nass conferred by the Dai at the end of his life was
doctrinally considered a valid nass, thus refuting the claim of the
plaintiff that only the first nass was a valid one.

67
Senior defence advocate Fredun Di’Vitre, while commencing arguments
on the issue of whether a nass could be revoked, changed or
superseded, informed Justice Gautam Patel that it was accepted in the
community, and there was historical evidence to show that nass had
been changed in the past. He stressed on the fact that as the nass was
pre-ordained and done through divine inspiration, a Dai could have
done nass on someone but later changed it.
Di’Vitre added that according to the beliefs of the community, the
names of the Dais were already mentioned in the Kitab-ul-Ilm (Book of
Knowledge), which is in the possession of the secluded Imam, and
hence, though the Dai may have appointed someone as his mansoos in
his lifetime, the final successor would be the one whose name was
mentioned in the book, and the Dai would appoint him before passing
away.

The bench was then told that texts written by the 20th Imam and previous
Dais clarified that nass, once conferred, could be changed depending on the
circumstances. Di’Vitre cited the example of the 18th Imam to drive home
his point.
As per the records of the Dawoodi Bohra community, the 17th Imam had
appointed both his sons as his successor. However, Imam Mosta’ali’s
succession prevailed as it was done after his brother’s appointment. The
defence counsel submitted that the 20th Imam had addressed the issue at
great length in his book and had also enumerated the instances under which
the successor could be changed.
Di’Vitre also made submissions with regard to the last nass and said that
according to Dawoodi Bohra practice, the last nass was not necessarily the
nass conferred by the Dai on his deathbed. The bench was told that even if

68
the Dai had conferred the nass months or years prior to his passing, if he did
not change the name of his successor, it was considered the final nass.
The bench was also informed that in the past, Dais had named their
mansoos but had also named others who could replace the mansoos in
the event of the mansoos passing away. This, he submitted, was done
to ensure that the community was not left without a leader in the event
of the Dai and his mansoos meeting an untimely end.

10Feb 2023

10.1 Book mistrusted by plaintiff confirms change in

nass: Defence
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Feb 01, 2023 11:35 PM IST

Mumbai: Continuing arguments to prove that a Dai could change the

nass conferred by him earlier on one person to another person, the
counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on Wednesday
informed the Bombay high court about a book written during the time
of the 27th Dai which confirmed the same, and submitted that it was
accepted as a doctrine by the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The HC was told that though the plaintiff had cast doubts on the
reliability of the book, as its author had rebelled and the book was
incomplete, the 51st Dai had held the author in high esteem and had, in
fact, gifted a micro-film of the book to former PM Jawaharlal
Nehru. The counsel submitted that based on the contents of the book,

69
the last nass conferred upon the defendant by the 52nd Dai was
doctrinally valid.
Senior defence counsel Fredun Di’Vitre also referred to the book ‘Al-
Muzayyanah’ written by Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj during the 17th
century about the life of the 27th Dai. The bench was told that the
manuscript was in the khizana (depository) of the community at Surat,
and extracts proving that a Dai could change his successor till the last
moment were being produced before the court.

The bench was taken through a passage in the book wherein the 28th Dai,
during a debate with dissenters on the issue of change in nass, had stated that
‘the conferer of the nass could alter/replace, change/degrade or lower/raise
the rank/post till the last moment of his life if he so intended as he had the
choice to do so’.
Di’Vitre submitted that Hasan bin Ali Khan was a highly ranked dignitary
during the time of the 26th and 27th Dais and he had written the book at the
behest of his teacher. The senior counsel added that the 51st Dai had praised
Hasan bin Ali Khan in his own book, ‘Neyam’, and had referred to him as
‘Maula’ (Master), thus putting to rest any doubts about his eminence. The
bench was told that though Hasan bin Ali Khan had rebelled, he was forgiven
after he repented, besides which the book was written before he rebelled.
The senior counsel then submitted that though the author and his book
were held in high esteem, the plaintiff had extended a different
translation, which was held as untenable by Arabic language
experts. The experts’ translations, Di’Vitre submitted, were in
consonance with the translation provided by the defendant and hence
the latter should be accepted. The bench was also told that Aziz
Qutbuddin, the brother of plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin had relied
on passages from ‘Al-Muzayyanah’ in his doctoral thesis.

70
10.2 Another text in HC cited to prove validity of changed nass
Mumbai News

Updated on Feb 04, 2023 12:44 AM IST

ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mumbai: On the 28th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession
case in the Bombay high court, defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s
counsel on Friday cited a book titled ‘Al-Sulaimaniyyah’ to reiterate that
nass could be changed.
The book written by Syedi Luqmanji Habibullah, who was given the
title of ‘Bab-ul-Ilm’ (Door of Knowledge) by the 39th Dai, stated that a
nass, like a will, could be changed by the testator till the last moment of
his life, and the last nass was to be considered final.
The HC was informed that though the plaintiff had raised doubts about
the manuscript of the book present with the community, the markings on
both copies proved that they were genuine and hence reliable, with
which the court agreed.
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre, while continuing arguments on the
changeability of nass and which one was considered valid, informed
Justice Gautam Patel that after the book ‘Al-Muzayyanah’, which was
written during the time of the 27th Dai, ‘Al-Sulaimaniyyah’, written
during the time of the 39th Dai, also dealt with the issue. Just like ‘Al-
Muzayyanah’ said that nass was like a will and could be changed by the
conferer till the last moment of his life, ‘Al-Sulaimaniyyah’ reiterated
the same—it maintained that a will made by a testator at any time of
during his life, if it remained unchanged till the last moment of his life,
was valid and had to be acted on upon after his death.
The bench was told that when read in its entirety, the words of Syedi
Luqmanji were proof of the Dawoodi Bohra belief with regard to the
changeability of nass.

71
Di’Vitre then dealt with the objection raised by the plaintiff regarding
the genuineness and authoritativeness of the book as well as his doubts
on who the author of the book was. The bench was informed that ‘Al-
Sulaimaniyyah’ was a collection of treatises refuting the claims of the
Sulaimanis. Di’Vitre drew the attention of the bench to the bibliography
of dawat texts (Fehriste Kutub) to show that the paragraphs cited in the
bibliography matched with the opening paragraphs of the
‘Sulaimaniyyah’, and a defence witness had confirmed the same.
Di’Vitre further informed the bench that the sister of plaintiff Syedna
Taher Fakhruddin had also referred to the book written by Syedi
Luqmanji, which showed that the author was a reliable one and his work
was authoritative. plaintiff.

10.3 More texts submitted to prove revocability of nass

ByK A Y Dodhiya

Feb 07, 2023 12:28 AM IST

Mumbai: Defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s counsel referred to another reliable text relied
upon by the Dawoodi Bohra community to show that nass, once conferred, could be revoked and
changed, and only the last witnessed nass conferred by the Dai was valid if it remained
unchanged till the last moment of the Dai’s life.
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre, while continuing submissions on the issue of revocation of
nass, gave the reference of the book ‘Burhan Al-Din’, which was written during the lifetimes of
the 45th, 46th and 47th Dais by Syedi Walibhai, a high-ranking dignitary. Di’Vitre said that as
the manuscripts available with the community were scribed by two individuals, the plaintiff had
expressed doubts about the veracity of the book; however, the deposition by witnesses confirmed
that the manuscripts were reliable, as they had been taken from the rare book section of the
khizana (depository) in Mumbai.
The bench was then shown the relevant passage from the book which said that the Dai could
appoint someone and later, based on inspiration from Allah, could retract the nass. In doing so,
the passage said that the Dai was not doing any innovation but was conforming to the traditions
of Allah’s companions. This translation, Di’Vitre informed the bench, was confirmed by the
plaintiff as well.

72
The senior counsel also referred to other books which had cited passages
from Walibhai’s book, and informed the bench that the 47th Dai had
recommended that his book be taught in Yemen. He added that the 51st and
52nd Dais had also sent passages from the book to members of the
community and also cited passages in their own treatises. This, Di’Vitre
submitted, was proof that the book and the author were reliable and accepted
in the community.
The bench was then informed of another book which was written in
refutation of the Alawi sect, which had broken away from the Dawoodi
Bohra sect during the time of the 28th Dai. The book, written by Syedi
Luqmanji, dealt with revocation of a previous nass which was conferred on
Ali bin Ibrahim by the 28th Dai. The book stated that the nass conferred by
the 28th Dai just days before his demise on Syedna Abdul Tayyab, who
ultimately became the 29th Dai, was valid, as it was the last nass, and the
previous nass stood revoked.
The bench was told that there were four instances of nass on Dais being
revoked and would be dealt with in the next hearing.

10.4 , Dais have changed successors: Defendant to HC

ByK A Y Dodhiya

Feb 09, 2023 12:45 AM IST

Mumbai: Counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on Wednesday

recounted historical evidence before the Bombay high court wherein nass was
changed by a Dai and another successor was appointed over the one who was
initially appointed.
While referring to the appointment of the fourth Dai, the bench of Justice Gautam Patel was
informed that the third Dai had changed the successor he had intended to appoint after the
intended person had himself recommended the appointment of the Dai’s son as the

73
successor. This, the counsel submitted, was one of the four instances which they would rely upon
to prove that previous Dais had revoked nass without contemplating whether nass, once
conferred, could be revoked.
On the 30th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession case, senior advocate Fredun
Di’Vitre referred to Syedna Hatim bin Ibrahim, the third Dai, and informed the bench that he had
appointed Ali bin Mohammad, a renowned and knowledgeable person of the time, as a tutor for
his son Ali bin Hatim. After completion of the tutelage, Ali bin Mohammad came to know that
the leader intended to appoint him (Ali bin Mohammad) as his successor.
Di’Vitre referred to various authoritative books of the Dawoodi Bohra
community wherein the said incident was cited, and informed the bench that
the 51st and 52nd Dai had also dealt with the topic in their books and
sermons.
He cited the relevant passage from four books ‘Burhan al-Din’, ‘Najmus
Saqib’, ‘Rawd’ and ‘Silsila’ wherein it was stated that after completion of the
tutelage, Ali bin Mohammad met the third Dai and said, “Indeed your son is
like me in knowledge and virtue, and he has another excellent quality, that of
kinship with you. Thus, he is more worthy and deserving than of being
conferred with nass.”
Narrating the incident further, Di’Vitre submitted that after hearing Ali bin
Mohammad’s plea, the third Dai had said that the tutor was much higher in
rank than the angels due to his humility and submission. Thereafter, Syedna
Hatim appointed his son Syedna Ali as his successor. On his demise, Syedna
Ali bin Hatim appointed his tutor, Syedna Ali bin Mohammad, as his
successor.
This, Di’Vitre said, was cited by Syedi Wali Bhai in his book ‘Burhan al-
Din’ as a comparison to the initial appointment of the 26th Dai, which was
later changed by the 25th Dai.
Di’Vitre further said that the event was narrated by both the 51st and 52nd
Dais in their sermons, the audio recordings of which were played before the
74
plaintiff and the court during the trial. The sermons were meant to extol the
sincerity of Syedna Ali bin Mohammad. The sermons stated that though
Syedna Ali bin Mohammad knew that he was to be the successor of the 3rd
Dai, he requested the leader to give his son that position, which the 3rd Dai
accepted, based on the inspiration of Allah and the secluded Imam.
The bench was told that when the plaintiff was asked about the event, he had
said that the nass was not conferred but the 3rd Dai had intended to do
so. Di’Vitre said that in light of the evidence from the books and sermons, it
was clear that nass had been conferred on Syedna Ali bin Mohammad but
was changed on his request.

10.5 Mix-up in names by scribes led to confusion on

revocation of nass: Defendant
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Feb 11, 2023 12:15 AM IST

Mumbai: Fredun Di’Vitre, counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal

Saifuddin, on Friday informed the Bombay high court that the claim of the
plaintiffs, Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, that
no conferred nass was revoked during the time of the 25th Dai was due to
scribal errors in the manuscripts of authoritative books.
The defence counsel clarified that Syedna Jalal, the 25th Dai, had appointed
Dawood bin Qutubshah as his successor even before he became the Dai and
had told the dignitaries about it. However, after receiving the news of the
demise of Syedna Yusuf, the 24th Dai in Yemen, Syedna Jalal called the
dignitaries and informed them that Dawood bin Ajabshah would be his
successor as the 26th Dai and that Dawood bin Qutubshah would succeed
him as the 27th Dai. The appointment, said Di’Vitre, was changed because
the Dai had a dream in which the secluded Imam told him to appoint both
Dawoods as his successors.
75
The bench of Justice Gautam Patel was told that plaintiff Syedna Fakhruddin,
while maintaining that nass once conferred could not be changed, had said
during questioning that the 25th Dai had not conferred nass as immediate
successor on Dawood bin Qutubshah at all. Di’Vitre referred to the
manuscripts which had cited the event and submitted that the scribes had
mixed up the names Ajabshah and Qutubshah but one of the earliest
manuscripts had mentioned the correct sequence, and hence the claim of the
plaintiff could not be accepted.
The correct sequence, Di’Vitre reiterated, was that Syedna Jalal first
appointed Qutubshah as his successor but later appointed Ajabshah as his
immediate successor and told Ajabshah to appoint Qutubshah as his
successor. This, D’Vitre said, proved that nass was revoked, and it was an
accepted practice in the community.
However, Justice Patel noted that while weighing the evidence before the
court, the latter was not expected to reconcile the contradictions in the
evidence and it was for the plaintiff to disprove the evidence as it was for the
defendant to submit evidence that was uncontroverted and clear. He added
that the burden of proving their respective arguments was on both parties.
The bench then sought to know whether the plaintiff had been questioned
regarding the appointment of the 50th Dai by the 49th Dai, as the events were
similar to those during the time of the 25th Dai. Di’Vitre said that the
plaintiff was not asked about it as they had taken the stand that after the 43rd
Dai, nass was only conferred orally and there was no written nass since then.

10.6 Will of 49th Dai proves nass can be changed: Defendant

76
ByK A Y Dodhiya
13-Feb-2023
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday was informed that the
49th Dai’s will proved that change in nass, which was divinely inspired,
was accepted in the Dawoodi Bohra faith.
Fredun Di’Vitre, counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin,
submitted that the plaintiffs had raised doubts about the will because
of the change in handwriting. However, he explained, part of the will
was in the hand of the 49th Dai but because of his failing health, the
latter part was penned by his son, who later became the 51st Dai.
Justice Gautam Patel was informed that in the last leg of his life, the
49th Dai had called his sons and high-ranking officials to witness his
will. At the time, he had named Abde Ali Mohiyuddin as his successor
based on divine inspiration and signed the will. Three witnesses had
also signed.
However, four months later, the leader called the witnesses again and
as he was unable to write, verbally informed them that he was
conferring nass on Syedna Abdullah Badruddin. The leader’s son,
Syedna Taher Saifuddin, recorded the oral nass on the last page of the
will.
Di’Vitre stated that the defence witnesses, who are also related to the
Dai’s family, had confirmed the handwriting of the 49th and 51st Dais,
and hence there was no question of the document not being reliable.
The bench was further informed that the 52nd Dai had also spoken in
his sermons about the change in nass wrought by the 49th Dai.
The senior counsel further referred to a document penned by the 51st
Dai in 1937 before he embarked on a pilgrimage. In the document, he

77
stated who his successor was, and in the event of the latter’s death
who would be the replacement. The 51st Dai had even named a third
person as the second one’s replacement in case of the latter’s untimely
death.
Di’Vitre informed the bench that this was another instance of nass
being changed. However, Justice Patel said that the document could
not prove change in nass but could prove that nass was like a will,
wherein the Dai was naming the persons who would carry on the duty
of heading the community in the event of the untimely passing of
himself or those he was appointing. Justice Patel said that travelling in
that period was filled with dangers and hence the Dai was naming
alternatives to succeed him.
After accepting the suggestion, Di’Vitre informed the bench that the
instance was also being cited to show that the name of the successor/s
was pre-ordained and mentioned in the Divine Book, and hence the Dai
was naming multiple successors.

10.7 Daiship has been a contentious issue since 1597

ByK A Y Dodhiya
Feb 28, 2023 02:47 AM IST
Mumbai: The last leg of the Syedna succession case hearing is all set to
commence on March 1 in the Bombay high court. According to Justice
Gautam Patel, who has been hearing the case since it was filed in 2014
by Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the hearing should be completed by
the end of the month and the judgement will be pronounced in due
course.

78
While the HC will be deciding on the issue of whether Syedna
Qutbuddin’s claim that his half-brother, the 52nd Dai who passed away
in 2014, had conferred a secret nass (divinely inspired appointment) on
him in 1965, a dive into the history of the Dawoodi Bohra community
reveals that conferment of nass has been a contentious issue since the
16th century. There have been multiple splits and the emergence of
different factions on account of this, and even today, the Dai (head) of
each faction avers that he is guided by the divine inspiration of the
Imam in seclusion.
The period between 1597 and 1621 saw multiple splits in the Bohra
community, which resulted in the formation of three major factions.
The splits were purportedly on the question of Daiship, which is also
the issue being heard by the HC. The suit filed by Syedna Qutbuddin,
and continued by his son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin after the demise of
the former in 2016, has challenged the Daiship of Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin who currently heads the Dawoodi Bohra community across
the world as the Dai-al-Mutlaq.

The first split in the Bohra community occurred in 1597, resulting in the
formation of the Sulaimani Bohra faction, which believes that Syedna
Sulaiman bin Hasan, the grandson of the 24th Dai, was the 27th Dai.
However, as the majority of Bohras in India accepted Syedna Dawood
bin Qutubshah as the 27th Dai, they came to be known as Dawoodi
Bohras.
In 1621, the second split occurred after a disagreement ensued on who
was the successor of the 28th Dai. While the majority accepted Syedna
Abduttayyeb Zakiuddin as the 29th Dai, a group believed Syedna Ali bin
Ibrahim to be the successor and followed him. The break-away faction

79
came to be known as the Alavi Bohras. Incidentally, the founding Dais
of all three factions are buried in the same graveyard at Ahmedabad.
Interestingly, there have been three more instances of splits in the
Dawoodi Bohra community after 1621. The first among them was in
1754 after the demise of the 39th Dai, Syedna Ebrahim Wajiuddin. The
breakaway faction came to be known as the Hebtiah Bohras after Ismail
bin Abdur Rasool broke away from the majority community which
followed Syedna Hebatullah-il-Moayed. The name Hebtiah could be
based on the name of Ismail’s son, Hebatullah. Though not much
information is available about this faction, its adherents are believed to
be concentrated in Ujjain.
The next split occurred after the death of Syedna Mohammad
Burhanuddin, the 46th Dai of the Dawoodi Bohra community in 1891.
The breakaway group was headed by Maulana Abdul Hussain Jivaji and
came to be known as the Atba-i-Malak, as its followers believed that as
the 46th Dai had passed away without appointing his successor, the
system of Daiship was disbanded. However, the majority Dawoodi
Bohra community accepted the Daiship of Syedna Abdul Kadir
Najmuddin who was the mazoon (second in command) of the 46th Dai.
The Atba-i-Malak group formed in 1891 further split into two groups,
namely Atba-i-Malak Badar and Atba-i-Malak Vakil. Though comprising
a miniscule percentage of the overall Bohra community, both groups
are based in Nagpur and have followers all over India.
All the above splinter groups, however, have almost similar beliefs with
regards to the Imamate and other religious tenets; the only difference
is that of the Dai. Each group has its own Dai who appoints his
successor based on the inspiration by the secluded Imam.

80
Incidentally, before the major split between 1597 and 1621, there was
another split in the Bohra community in Patan, Gujarat, which was led
by Jafar Patani, who gave up Mostali Tayyebi Bohra beliefs and
converted to Sunnism in 1538. This group came to be known as the
Jafari Bohras, which was later changed to Jafari Vohras. The followers,
now known as Sunni Vohras, are found mostly in Karachi but there are
some in India as well. However, this split is the only one which is not
due to the Daiship issue.
Another group called the Hujumiya revolted against the 33rd Dai,
Syedna Feer Khan Shujauddin, in 1657. However, the group did not
break away on the question of Daiship; it was unhappy with the way
the Dai was conducting the affairs of the community.
Why the splits?
All the splits in the Bohra community have been based on the issue of
who was appointed by the Dai as his successor. In the present case in
the Bombay HC, the plaintiffs Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin and later his
son Syedna Taher Fakhruddin maintained that as per Dawoodi Bohra
tenets, the Dai names his successor based on inspiration from the
secluded Imam, and as both the Imam and the Dai are infallible, once a
successor is named or appointed, whether openly or in secret, the
name cannot be changed.
The original plaintiff Syedna Qutbuddin claimed that as the 52nd Dai
had conferred nass on him in December 1965 and was told to keep it a
secret, after the demise of the 52nd Dai in January 2014, he was the
rightful successor but the current Dai and defendant in the HC case,
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, wrongly claimed the position for himself.
However, the counsel for the defendant informed the HC that there
were instances of nass being revoked and changed by previous Dais.

81
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre cited relevant passages from
authoritative books of the Bohra community, where the authors had
refuted the claims of the Sulaimani and Alavi Bohra groups and stated
that revocation of nass was an accepted norm in the community.

11March 2023

11.1 Syedna succession case: Nass valid even if witnesses

don’t accept it, says plaintiff’s counsel
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 02, 2023 01:52 AM IST

Mumbai: The counsel for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, while

refuting the arguments of the defendant’s counsel that conferment of
nass required witnesses, informed the Bombay high court that there
were instances in the succession of the Ismaili Imams where nass was
conferred privately in the absence of witnesses.
The counsel for the plaintiff made the submissions in the ongoing final
hearing of the Syedna succession case to reiterate that the secret nass
conferred on the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin by the
52nd Dai in December 1965 was valid as per Dawoodi Bohra tenets, as
it was divinely ordained and did not require outside witnesses. Senior
advocate Anand Desai for the plaintiff, while commencing arguments in
rejoinder to the submissions made by the counsels for defendant
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, informed the bench of Justice Gautam

82
Patel that there were no doctrinal evidences to show that conferment
of nass required outside witnesses. He submitted that on the contrary
there were instances wherein the conferee was the only witness, and
his claim of being the successor of the Imam or Dai was not disputed or
challenged by the members of the Dawat.

Earlier, the defence counsels, while arguing in response to Syedna

Qutbuddin’s claim in 2014 that a secret nass had been conferred on
him in 1965 without any witnesses, had relied upon various instances,
sermons and writings of the Dais and knowledgeable persons of the
Dawoodi Bohra community to show that witnesses were a mandatory
requirement for nass to be valid. The counsels had informed HC that
the conferee could not be his own witness, and outside witnesses were
required to confirm the succession.
Citing the example of Prophet Idris, Desai informed the bench that as
people did not know who the prophet or hujja (proof of God) was,
Prophet Idris had built an astrolabe to prove that he had superior
knowledge and hence he was the prophet. The bench was also told that
apart from superior knowledge, the fact that a hujja was required to
continue the Dawat at all times hence he was the prophet.
Desai further referred to the Quranic verse wherein Allah ordered the
Holy Prophet to convey the news of Ali’s succession to the people. The
plaintiff counsel said that though the Holy Prophet conveyed this to the
people, who were also witnesses to the succession, they did not accept
Ali as the successor immediately. However, it did not change the fact
that Ali was the successor. The bench was told that in light of this it was
clear that the appointment of a successor was divinely ordained, and
even if witnesses did not accept it, the succession still stood. Hence, the

83
requirement of witnesses could not be a mandatory requirement for
the validity of nass.
The senior counsel also referred to the appointments of the 13th Imam
and the 8th Dai, both of whom were appointed by their predecessors
privately and without witnesses. Desai informed the bench that both
the 51st and 52nd Dais in their sermons had confirmed the private
communication in both instances to be nass.
The bench was also told that during examination, the defendant had
also agreed that the 13th Imam was given entrustment in private by his
predecessor, which meant conferment of nass, but the defendant had
not admitted it to be so. Desai said that as per the beliefs of the
community—that there had to be an Imam to continue the Dawat—
though the 13th Imam did not announce his succession after the
demise of his predecessor, he was the successor and hence the claim
that entrustment could not be interpreted as nass was not valid.

11.2 Refusal of defendant to give witness not ground

for questioning appointment: HC
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 03, 2023 01:09 AM IST

Mumbai The Bombay high court on Thursday noted that the refusal of
the defendant in the Syedna succession case to give witness, cannot be
a ground for questioning validity of his appointment. The court made
the remark after the counsel for the plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin
submitted that the original plaintiff was knowledgeable about the
doctrinal aspect of the validity of secret nass and hence came to
court. However, as the defendant refrained from attending court, his

84
belief on nass being conferred on him could not be tested and hence
his ascension as successor to the 52nd Dai was questionable.
The HC noted that as the word of the appointing Dai was final and as there
was no eligibility criteria for appointment to the post, the defendant’s claim
of the nass on June 4, 2011 sufficed and his knowledge and qualification did
not matter.

On the 35th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession case, senior
advocate Anand Desai representing the plaintiff continued his rejoinder to the
arguments of the defendant on the doctrinal aspect of a valid nass. The
defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddins counsel had stated that as per
doctrine, witnesses were necessary to validate a nass.
Desai informed the bench that as he had refuted the defendants claim about
witnesses through instances on Wednesday he would deal with another
doctrinal aspect. He submitted that it was an accepted norm in the community
that the Dai had to be most knowledgeable and submitted that the Syedna
Khuzaima Qutbuddin, original plaintiff, had the requisite qualification.
The senior counsel referred to the sermon and statements made by the 51st
Dai wherein the leader had lauded the knowledge of Syedna Qutbuddin. The
bench was further told that the 52nd Dai had in fact entrusted the defendant
and his brothers to the tutelage of the original plaintiff and in turn the
students had also admitted to the high level of knowledge that their teacher
possessed.
In light of this submission, Desai told the court that it was expected that the
defendant who had taken the post of Dai after the demise of the 52nd Dai
would have come to court and given witness but his refusal could give
an inference that he was not the most knowledgeable in the community.

85
However, justice Gautam Patel did not accept the submission and said that
the question of the Dai being the most knowledgeable was neither the case of
the original plaintiff nor a point of contention as conferment of nass was
solely at the discretion of the conferring Dai. He further noted that as there
was no criteria of the Dai having to appoint only his son as the successor as
was the case for Imams, the Dai could appoint anyone regardless of the level
of the conferees knowledge and hence the plaintiff could not raise the issue.
Desai responded and said that the only reason for raising the point was to
highlight the doctrinal aspect that the Dai is most knowledgeable and in light
of that had the defendant given witness to his belief on conferment of nass on
himself it would have been the best evidence.
The senior counsel also submitted that he would be dealing with the factual
aspect of the nass which was the third issue but the fact remained that the
defendant had neither come himself nor had brought any senior scholar of the
community as a doctrinal witness and referred to the deposition of the
defence witnesses wherein they had said that they were unaware of many of
the books that the defendants’ counsel had referred to, to elucidate the
doctrinal validity of the nass.

11.3 Direct communication of nass by conferrer accepted:

Plaintiff
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 04, 2023 01:00 AM IST

Mumbai The plaintiff, while responding to queries of the Bombay high court
on the issue of whether private nass was accepted as per Dawoodi Bohra

86
tenets, submitted that though the defendant had refuted that private nass
without witnesses was acceptable, there was the instance of the 50th Dai
doing so in 1915.
The plaintiffs’ counsel cited the private communication by the 50th Dai to the
51st Dai and said that though the 50th Dai had called two persons the
previous night and told them of his intention, he had told the 51st Dai about
his succession the next morning without any witnesses.

The court then clarified that it would not be considering instances of private
nass without witnesses on Prophet Idris and Solomon, as the two nass was
directly from Allah and were on a different footing from the nass by an Imam
or Dai.
On the 36th day of the final hearing of the Syedna succession case, senior
advocate Anand Desai for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin was told by the
single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Patel that there were some queries that
he wanted the counsel to clarify regarding whether the plaintiff had
completed his response to the defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s
counsel’s argument that a nass had to have witnesses.

Desai informed the bench that he had cited instances of the 13th Imam, the
8th Dai and the instances of the appointment of Prophet Idris and Solomon to
drive home the point that the Bohra community had accepted the
Imamate, Daiship and Prophethood though it was evident that the said
appointees had announced their succession without there being any witnesses
to corroborate their claims.
At this point, Justice Patel said that as the nass of Prophethood was different,
it could not be considered as an instance, to which Desai agreed. The senior
counsel then told the bench that he was citing a more recent example of

87
private nass, one which was conferred on the 51st Dai by his
predecessor. Desai informed the bench that though the defendant had said
that only the communication to the two persons the previous night was
considered nass, the 52nd Dai in his sermon had said that the morning
communication by the 50th Dai was nass. He added that both the plaintiff and
defendant agreed on nass being conferred in 1915 but the difference was
whether the nass of night or day was a valid one.
Desai also brought up Syedna Sulayman bin Hasan’s claim of being the 27th
Dai which was rejected because apart from there being no witnesses, he did
not claim to be conferred nass directly by the 26th Dai. Desai informed the
bench that while the defendant’s counsel had listed three reasons for the
rejection of Syedna Sulayman’s claim, including production of an
unwitnessed letter, the counsel had failed to mention that unlike the original
plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Syedna Sulayman did not claim to
have been directly told of his appointment by the 26th Dai that he was the
mansoos (second-in-command).
The original plaintiff has maintained in his suit that he was conferred nass
privately by the 52nd Dai in December 1965 without any witnesses, and his
evidence sufficed as there was no doctrinal compulsion to have two or more
witnesses as canvassed by the defendant.

11.4 Syedna sole administrator of Bohra affairs, said HC in

famous Gulla case
ByK A Y Dodhiya

88
Mar 08, 2023 01:00 AM IST

Mumbai: The Bombay high court, which is hearing the Syedna succession
case, has asked both plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin and defendant
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to furnish the case law involved in two
prominent cases of the Dawoodi Bohra community that were decided by the
HC. One of them was in 1917 and famously known as the gulla (offertory
box) case.
The case, filed by former advocate-general Sir Thomas Strangman, pertained
to contributions received from Dawoodi Bohras in an offertory box placed
outside the tomb of one Seth Chandabhoy Currimbhoy at Bhendi Bazar.
Strangman had questioned the absolute authority of Syedna Taher Saifuddin,
the 51st Dai, on the utilisation of the offerings, both in cash and kind. The
AG had submitted that as the offerings were in the nature of charity, the
surplus fund could not be utilised for buying properties.
The 51st Dai, who was the third and main respondent in the case, had
deposed before the bench of Justice Barrington Marten that the fund was not
charity but contributions by community members, and as he was the head of
the community and vested with the powers to administer all moveable and
immovable assets in the name of the community, utilisation of the surplus
gulla funds could not be questioned.
The case was heard for around four years, as numerous followers of Syedna
Saifuddin deposed before the court, stating that they had made contributions
to the gulla and hence their leader had the discretion to utilise them
whichever way he deemed fit. While some witnesses deposed that Syedna
Saifuddin derived his authority from the Prophet via a long chain of Imans

89
and Dais, some of the witnesses went to the extent of calling Syedna
Saifuddin God and hence having absolute authority.
The 51st Dai informed the bench that he was administering the affairs of the
community by divine inspiration and guidance of the secluded Imam, and in
the absence of the Iman “claimed to be the owner and master of all property
possessed by any Dawoodi Borah, and to be also the master of their minds,
bodies and souls”. He argued that the offerings by devotees could not be
treated as charity and hence did not fall under the laws governing charitable
contributions.
In light of these submissions and the subsequent withdrawal of the prayer by
AG Strangman that the contributions be treated as charity, Justice Marten
directed that a trust be formed to utilise the funds deposited in the gulla. As
the court had deemed that considering the Syedna God was sacrilege, it
upheld the submissions of the Syedna that though he was not in the rank of
God or the Prophet, due to his being kul masoom (almost infallible) he was
vested with the powers which devolved to him through the Prophet and
Imam.
Thereafter, the court in its decree pronounced in 1921 said, “…and this Court
doth further declare that the tomb of Seth Chandabhoy Currimbhoy
mentioned in the said plaint and the offerings thereat, past, present and future,
and the investments made from past offerings, form the subject of a Trust
(hereinafter called, ‘The Gulla Trust’) created for public purposes of a
charitable and religious nature, and that the sole right of management of the
Gulla Trust is vested in the said third defendant, Sardar Saiyedna Taher
Saifuddin, and his successors in office.”

90
 11.5 ‘51st Dai’s letter direct evidence of original plaintiff’s
appointment’
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 10, 2023 12:58 AM IST

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.

91
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.

11.6 Syedna succession case: In 1988, defendant addressed

plaintiff as the future Dai
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 14, 2023 12:48 AM IST

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.

92
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

93
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.

11.7 ‘Audio recording of nass popped up from nowhere, not

reliable’
ByK A Y Dodhiya

Mar 16, 2023 05:01 PM IST

MUMBAI: Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, the plaintiff in the Syedna succession

case, on Wednesday refuted the claim of defendant Syedna Mufaddal
94
Saifuddin, that the 52nd Dai had conferred a valid nass on him on four
occasions from 1969 to June 20, 2011, and submitted that the audio recording
of the June 4, 2011 nass played before the Bombay high court earlier was not
reliable.
Anand Desai, the counsel for the plaintiff, stated that the audio recording was
not disclosed by the defendant or any of the defence witnesses who were
allegedly privy to it since June 4, 2011 till the suit was filed in the HC. The
counsel stated that the audio recording had just ‘popped up’ during the suit,
and though there were witnesses to it, it still could not be relied upon as
evidence due to the circumstances that prevailed after the ill-health of the
52nd Dai.
Desai informed Justice Gautam Patel that the claim of the defendant that a
valid nass was conferred on him on June 4, 2011 when the 52nd Dai was
admitted to hospital in London could not be relied upon for various reasons.
But before delving into the events of that day, Desai recounted an incident of
March 25, 2011, the 100th birthday of the 52nd Dai. As per the video
recording of the event, he submitted, the Dai, after embracing the original
plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, then embraced his brothers.
However, when it was the turn of the defendant to embrace his father, the Dai
asked him to stop and started beating his chest, a mourning ritual. It was only
after the Dai’s doctor requested him that the leader embraced his sons, said
Desai, submitting that the Dai’s act was indicative of his dislike for his son.
The bench was told that the video of the March event as well as other audio-
visual evidence that the defendant had relied upon would be played before
the court on Friday to show how some of the evidence had been manipulated
and misinterpreted.

95
Desai then sought to argue about the defendant not being trained to take over
the post of the Dai either by his father, the 52nd Dai, or the 51st Dai.
However, Justice Patel said that the argument could not be accepted, as there
was no prescriptive methodology available for appointing a Dai. Desai agreed
but added that though there were no fixed parameters for a person to be
eligible for a Dai’s position, historically the appointee had to be the ‘like’ of
the appointer.

11.8 Defence witnesses gave contradictory evidence on nass

ByK A Y Dodhiya
Mar 21, 2023 12:52 AM IST
MUMBAI: Anand Desai, the counsel for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin in
the Syedna succession case, while refuting the nass conferred on the
defendant in 2005 and 1969, drew the attention of the Bombay high court
to the various anomalies present in the defendant’s and defence witnesses’
statements.
The counsel submitted that the evidence by the third defence witness Abdul
Qadir Nooruddin could not be relied upon, as his evidence in several
instances was contrary to the statements of the defendant and other
witnesses. He argued that Nooruddin’s name was inserted in the instances
of nass on the defendant as an afterthought.

Desai referred to a notebook, which, the defence counsel had claimed, was
the place where the 52nd Dai had recorded the 1969 nass performed on the
defendant. He said that the defendant in a sermon in 2014 had said that no
one opened the cupboard except the 52nd Dai; however, witness Abdul
96
Qadir Nooruddin had stated that he had got the notebook to be shown to
the defendant. Desai submitted that it seemed that just as the conferment
of the nass had evolved as per the need in the suit, Nooruddin was giving
statements accordingly.
The senior counsel then referred to the evidence of Nooruddin, who claimed
that he was asked by the 52nd Dai to call his two sons in 2005. Desai said
that his evidence was contrary to the statements of Shehzada Malekul
Ashtar, who claimed that the two brothers were called directly.
Desai told the court that the statements vis-a-vis nass being conferred by
the 52nd Dai on the defendant in 2005 had many lapses and hence could
not be accepted. For instance, while Shehzada Malekul Ashtar, the ninth
defence witness, had submitted that in 2005, the 52nd Dai had personally
called him and his brother Shehzada Qaid Johar to his bedroom and told
them that nass was conferred on the defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin,
there was no mention about the 2005 nass after the leader purportedly
conferred nass on the defendant on June 4, 2011.
The bench was told that not only did the details of the event evolve, but the
words attributed to the 52nd Dai by Ashtar and Qaid Johar also evolved over
time as different words kept being attributed to the 52nd Dai at different
stages of the suit.
Desai submitted that though the defendant claimed that the nass of 1969
was witnessed by several persons, those very persons continued to indulge
in acts of reverence to the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin,
which were done only to a Dai or a Dai-to-be till their demise.
Referring to the submission of the defendant that he had been shown the
notebook by the 52nd Dai in 2009 while he was alone, Desai argued that if
that had been the case, the defendant would have referred to it in his
sermons after June 2011 till the demise of his predecessor in 2014, but the
notebook was only mentioned after the original plaintiff announced the
1965 nass on him.

97
 11.9 Syedna succession case: Case of Ismail proves that nass
cannot be revoked: Plaintiff
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Mar 25, 2023 12:37 AM IST
MUMBAI: The counsel for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin in the Syedna
succession case being heard in the Bombay high court, on Friday refuted the
claim of defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin that nass once conferred,
could be revoked.
Justice Gautam Patel, while hearing the rejoinder to the submissions of the
defendant ’s counsel, was informed by senior counsel Anand Desai that it
was a fundamental belief of the Dawoodi Bohra community that nass could
not be changed or revoked. Desai drew the attention of the bench to the
fact that the 5th Imam of the Ismaili Shias had conferred nass of succession
on his son Ismail and directed Ismail to appoint his son Mohammad as his
successor.
The court was told that the Ismaili Shias believed that nass had been
conferred on Ismail by his father, and though he predeceased his father, the
nass was not revoked. The Dawoodi Bohras, said the counsel, believed that
the schism between Ithna Ashari Shias and Ismaili Shias occurred because
the latter firmly believed that as Ismail was conferred nass, his death could
not lead to his replacement, and thus the Imamat was passed on to Ismail’s
son, Mohammad. Desai submitted that none of the Dais had disputed the
sequence of events.
The bench was also told that the plaintiff, in his deposition, had made this
stand clear by stating that he had heard the 51st and 52nd Dai on numerous
occasions state that nass once conferred, could not be changed.

98
Desai also referred to the will of the 49th Dai, which the defendant had
submitted as proof of nass having been changed by him. Desai said that the
letter in which the 49th Dai had informed his son of nass being conferred on
him, which was allegedly changed four months later, could not be relied
upon, as the letter was allegedly part of the bundle in the cupboard of the
52nd Dai, and as there was no evidence to corroborate the contents of the
cupboard, this letter could also not be relied upon as it would mean that
God, the Imam and the Dai were fallible.
As the final hearing of the suit is coming to an end, the bench asked both
parties to ensure that all the evidence was accounted for and provided to
the court in the proper format: printouts of the written submissions as well
as the digital evidence in a hard drive which would be kept with the
concerned HC authority as a record.
The plaintiff’s counsel is expected to conclude the rejoinder by the end of
next week and the defendant has been asked to conclude his sur-rejoinder.

12April 2023

12.1 Original plaintiff’s claims of concealing belief were belied

by his actions
ByK A Y Dodhiya
Apr 01, 2023 12:53 AM IST
Mumbai: Fredun Di’Vitre, counsel for respondent Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin, while replying to the plaintiff’s rejoinder that he had adopted
taqiyyah (concealing one’s faith and beliefs) about the nass conferred
on him, said that the original plaintiff could not take a dual stand in the
99
garb of taqiyyah. Di’Vitre submitted that on the one hand the plaintiff
claimed that he did not believe that nass had been conferred on the
defendant on June 4 and 20, 2011 but on the other hand, had
continued to remain silent about the nass conferred on himself.
Di’Vitre commenced the sur-rejoinder to the arguments of senior
advocate Anand Desai for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin by pointing
out that though the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin
claimed to be practicing taqiyyah, his acts were contrary to the
definition of the word. Di’Vitre informed Justice Gautam Patel that after
seeing the original plaintiff not praying behind the defendant, those
close to him had understood that the original plaintiff had not accepted
the succession of the defendant. This, Di’Vitre said, was contradictory
to the principle of taqiyyah, as the original plaintiff had given
indications of his belief.
Di’Vitre further argued that if the original plaintiff was in taqiyyah, he
had many opportunities from June 2011 to 2014 to get the 52nd Dai to
ensure that his appointment was made known, but he did not do that
either. The plaintiff had argued that due to the hostile atmosphere after
2011, the original plaintiff adopted taqiyyah and waited for the 52nd
Dai to recover and clarify who was the real appointee.
However, Justice Patel observed that the original plaintiff was true to
the oath of secrecy and hid the nass conferred on him even from his
own family till 2014. This indicated that he was being true to the
instructions of the 52nd Dai.
Di’Vitre then brought up the plaintiff’s claim that the behaviour of
persons of higher learning changed after the sermon of December 1965
because they understood that though the original plaintiff was named
the mazoon (second-in-command), he was also the mansoos
(nominated successor) of the 52nd Dai. This, he submitted, was not
100
valid, as there was no evidence to show that their behaviour changed
and actions like doing sajda to him started only after hearing the 1965
sermon.
At this point, Justice Patel said that he would be dealing with the issues,
first from the point of doctrinal validity of nass and revocation of nass,
then proceed to the four nasses conferred on the defendant and then
deal with the issue of whether nass was conferred on the original
plaintiff.

12.2 ‘Refutation of nass on defendant not proved by plaintiffs’

ByK A Y Dodhiya
Apr 04, 2023 12:35 AM IST
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
101
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.

12.3 Trial In Bombay HC In Syedna Muffadal Saifuddin

Succession Row Ends
|Rosy Sequeira | TNN | Apr 6, 2023, 04:41 IST

102
MUMBAI: Nine years after a suit was filed in the Bombay high court
challenging Syedna Muffadal Saifuddin's position as Dai al Mutlaq or
spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community, the trial in the
succession row concluded on Wednesday.
"Thank you very much. Arguments concluded finally," said Justice
Gautam Patel. He heard the challenge by Taher Fakhruddin in
continuation of the claim of his late father Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the half-
brother of the 52nd Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin who passed away
on January 17, 2014. Burhanuddin's second son Saifuddin immediately
succeeded him as 53rd Syedna. In March 2014, Qutbuddin (then 73) filed
a suit for declaration as the rightful 53rd Dai, saying Burhanuddin
privately conferred 'nass' - the official declaration of succession - on him
on December 10, 1965 but asked him to keep it a secret.

The trial began on April 27, 2015 with cross-examination of Qutbuddin.

During pendency of trial, he died on March 31, 2016 in US. On March 7,
2017 HC allowed Fakhruddin, who was anointed his successor, to be
substituted as plaintiff in his father's 2014 suit. Fakruddin consequently
sought declaration as 54th Dai. Advocates for Fakhruddin argued the Dai
is infallible and as he anoints his successor on divine inspiration, 'nass'
once conferred is irrevocable and final. Justice Patel heard arguments
and examined experts on ideology and beliefs on 'nass,' the
circumstances in 1965 and events that unfolded till 2014.
Syedna Saifuddin chose not to appear in court. His advocates argued
'nass' claimed by Qutbuddin was without witness and as per established
doctrine, it could be revoked. They gave past instances. They argued
Saifuddin was conferred 'nass' on June 4, 2011 when his father was in a
London hospital following a stroke. It was reaffirmed at a public event on
June 20, 2011 and there could be no doubts on Saifuddin as successor-

103
designate taking over the mantle after his father's death. They
questioned Qutbuddin's silence between June 2011 and January 2014.
On Wednesday, Justice Patel referred to a statement in the plaint that if
'nass' conferred on Qutbuddin was made public, it would lead to
pandemonium. Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, for Saifuddin, said
Qutbuddin had said when his uncle Syedi Saleh Safiuddin, who was
'mukasir' - 3rd in rank - had asked Syedna Burhanuddin why it was not
made public, he had replied if he had done that, "swords would be
drawn." Dwarkadas said Safiuddin died in 1990. Qutbuddin did not
produce evidence.

12.4 Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute: HC verdict will

establish truth, claimant faction says
Mumbai: The claimant to the title of ‘Dai-ul Mutlaq’ in the Dawoodi Bohra community
succession dispute said on Thursday that the Bombay High Court verdict would establish the
truth.
The court on Wednesday concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict in the dispute between
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, the current leader of Dawoodi Bohras, and his challenger Taher
Fakhruddin.

'Select press meeting' held at Yacht Club to update media

Fakhruddin’s side had organised a press conference to update the media about the court
proceedings that have already taken place since the case was filed nine years ago.

The “select press meeting” was held at the Yacht Club, Colaba. Among those present were
Anand Desai (the senior counsel who first represented Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the original
plaintiff who has since died, and now represents his son Taher Fakhruddin). Fakhruddin’s
brothers, the ‘Mazoon-e-Dawat’ Syedi Abdeali and Aziz Qutbuddin, and a few of their
supporters were also present.

“The High Court order will establish the truth in the case. It will bring the truth out. The
community is waiting with bated breath and there has been a lot of anguish and hope,” Abdeali
said.

104
Abdeali said that his father, the original plaintiff, had fought the case as he felt it was his duty.
This is not the first time that the community is seeing a succession battle. There was one during
the reign of Emperor Akbar too.

“Both sides have a following in the community and even in the courts it was decided that it is not
a ‘popularity contest’,” Abdeali said.

Desai said that an interim injunction was sought to restrain the other side from using the title of
Dai till the case was decided, but the court said it will instead decide on the (succession) suit
itself.

Asked what they would do if the judgment went against them, Desai said it was “premature”.
“This meeting is to just tell people what is already there on record in the court. Not many people
know what transpired. Only a select few media reported the case on a daily basis, so we just
wanted to ensure that more people know about it,” Desai said.

13May 2023

14April 2024
14.1 Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin's Position As 53rd Spiritual Leader Of
Dawoodi Bohra Community

Amisha Shrivastava

23 Apr 2024 11:17 AM

105
After a ten-year long legal battle, the Bombay High Court has upheld
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's position as “Dai-al-Mutlaq” or the
religious leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community, dismissing his
nephew Taher Fakhruddin's claim.
Justice GS Patel pronounced the judgment today, dismissing
Fakhruddin's suit.
The trial in the Syedna succession row concluded and judgment was
reserved in April 2023, spanning nine years. The final hearing began in
November 2022 and concluded in April 2023.
In 2014, the 52nd Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin passed away, and
his son Mufaddal Saifuddin succeeded as the 53rd Syedna. Khuzaima
Qutbuddin, Syedna Burhanuddin's half-brother, challenged Saifuddin's
succession, claiming that Syedna Burhanuddin had secretly conferred
'nass,' the official declaration of succession, upon him in 1965.
Qutbuddin claimed that Saifuddin took over as the Syedna in a
fraudulent manner. Qutbuddin claimed that after Burhanuddin became
the Dai in 1965, he had publicly appointed Qutbuddin as the mazoon
(second in command) and privately anointed him as his successor
through a secret nass, prior to the mazoon announcement on
December 10, 1965.
Qutbuddin passed away in 2016, leading his son Taher Fakhruddin to
continue the legal battle and seeking recognition as the 54th Dai.
Fakhruddin claimed that his father Qutbuddin conferred the 'nass' on
him in
The court framed five issues including the maintainability of the suit,
requirements of a valid 'nass', whether a valid 'nass' was conferred on
original plaintiff Qutbuddin and subsequently his son Fakhruddin,

106
whether a 'nass' can be revoked or changed, and whether a valid 'nass'
was conferred on defendant Saifuddin.
Advocate Anand Desai for Fakhruddin contended that 'nass' once
conferred is permanent and cannot be changed.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas for the defence
(Saifuddin) asserted that 'nass' could be changed, and even if a 'nass'
had been conferred on Qutbuddin, only the last 'nass' would be valid
which was conferred on Saifuddin.
The defence claimed that the 52nd Dai Burhanuddin had conferred
'nass' on his son Saifuddin in the presence of witnesses on June 4, 2011.
Saifuddin was publicly reaffirmed as successor-designate on June 20,
2011, the defence submitted.
The defence argued that Qutbuddin's 'nass' had no witnesses, and
questioned his silence regarding his alleged appointment between 2011
and 2014. The defence claimed that Saifuddin had been appointed in
1969, 2005, and twice in June 2011. However, Desai contended that the
four 'nass' on Saifuddin were concocted.
Case no. – S/337/2014

Bombay high court rejects Dawoodi Bohra succession suit, upholds

Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s claim
ByHT News Desk
Apr 23, 2024 12:03 PM IST
The Bombay high court dismissed a suit challenging Syedna Mufaddal
Saifuddin's position as the 53rd religious leader of Dawoodi Bohra
Community.

107
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a suit challenging Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin's position as the 53rd religious leader or 'Dai-al-
Mutlaq' of the Dawoodi Bohra Community. The court dismissed his
nephew Taher Fakhriddin's claim.

Dawoodi Bohra succession row HC dismisses suit against appointment

of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin

PTI Updated: April 23, 2024 12:26 IST

Mumbai, Apr 23 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a
2014 suit challenging the position and appointment of Syedna
Mufaddal Saifuddin as the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Community.

The court has "only decided on the issue of proof and not faith," a
single bench of Justice Gautam Patel said and dismissed the suit initially
filed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin soon after his brother and the then
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin passed away in January 2014 at the
age of 102.

Burhanuddin's second son Mufaddal Saifuddin then took over as the

Syedna.

In 2016, after Qutbuddin passed away, his son Taher Fakhruddin took
over the suit claiming his father had conferred the powers on him.

The suit sought the court to restrain Saifuddin from discharging his
duties as Syedna.

Qutbuddin had in his suit claimed his brother Burhanuddin appointed

108
him as the mazoon (second in command) and privately anointed him as
his successor through a secret "nass" (conferment of succession), prior
to the mazoon announcement on December 10, 1965.
Fakhruddin claimed that his father before dying conferred and
appointed him for the position.
Justice Patel, while dismissing the suit, said, "I don't want any
upheavals. I have kept the judgment as neutral as possible. I have only
decided on the issue of proof and not faith."
The Dawoodi Bohras are a religious denomination among Shia
Muslims.
Traditionally a community of traders and entrepreneurs, it has more
than 5 lakh members in India and over 10 lakh across the world.

The community's top religious leader is known as the Dai-al-Mutlaq

(most senior).
As per faith and Dawoodi Bohra doctrine, a successor is appointed
through "divine inspiration".
A "nass" can be conferred upon any deserving member of the
community and not necessarily a family member of the current Dai,
although the latter is often the practice.
The suit had sought the HC to restrain Saifuddin from acting as the
Dai-al-Mutlaq.
It also sought an entry to Saifi Manzil, the house of the Syedna in
Mumbai, alleging that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin had taken over the
leadership role in a "fraudulent manner".
Qutbuddin claimed that after Burhanuddin became the new Dai-al-
Mutlaq, taking over from his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin in 1965, he
publicly appointed his half brother as the mazoon (second in command)
and privately anointed him as his successor through a secret nass.
Burhanuddin asked him to keep the private nass a secret, Qutbuddin
claimed. He maintained that he abided by the oath of secrecy given to
him by the 52nd Dai till his death.

109
 Syedna Saifuddin opposed the suit, claiming the nass of 1965 lacked
witnesses and could not be accepted.
He claimed that as per the established and prevalent doctrines of the
Dawoodi Bohra faith, nass could be changed and revoked.
As per the Syedna's claims, on June 4, 2011, the 52nd Dai conferred
nass on Syedna Saifuddin in the presence of witnesses at the Bupa
Cromwell Hospital in London, where he was admitted after suffering a
stroke.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated
from PTI)

15May 2024

15.1 HC disposes of litigations over Dawoodi Bohra trusts,

properties
TNN | May 24, 2024, 04.55 AM IST

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has disposed of various petitions and appeals
relating to the trusteeship of 75 public trusts and 261 waqf properties of the Dawoodi
Bohra community in the state, after the Bombay high court upheld the succession of
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin as the 53rd Dai-ul-mutlaq, the religious head of the Bohra
community.

The dispute over the trusteeship of these properties was pending before the HC after the
death of the 52nd Dai, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin in 2014. His brother, Khuzema
Qutbuddin, claimed to be the 53rd Dai, after the late Syedna passed on the religious
leadership to his son, Mufaddal Saifuddin.

In 2014, Khuzema Qutbuddin filed eight petitions in the high court saying the principles
of natural justice were violated by several authorities — the charity commissioner as
well as the Gujarat Waqf Board — by entering the name of his nephew Syedna
Mufaddal as the ‘sole trustee’ in numerous trusts and waqf properties. The HC had

110
restrained the 53rd Syedna from administrating the waqf properties when the petition
was filed.

Khuzema Qutbuddin passed away in March 2016 in the US, and his son, Taher
Fakhruddin, moved the high court here to join the litigation as a party. He claimed that
he was declared the 54th Dai by his father and as the rightful successor and head of the
community, he must be heard when the right of administration of the community’s
property is to be decided. In Oct 2016, a single-judge bench permitted Taher Fakhruddin
to join the litigations instituted by his father. This led Mufaddal Saifuddin to file appeals
before a division bench.

During the pendency of the bench of litigations, the Bombay HC adjudicated a suit on
April 23 and upheld the succession of Mufaddal Saifuddin as the 53rd Dai of the
community. This led the Dai’s advocates to request the Gujarat HC to dispose of the
appeals and petitions as having become infructuous.

However, Taher Fakhruddin’s counsel submitted that Taher Fakhruddin was intending
to challenge the Bombay HC’s order in the Supreme Court. The bench headed by Chief
Justice Sunita Agarwal disposed of the appeals saying, “In case of reversal of the
judgment of the Bombay high court on the basis of which this group of appeals and writ
petitions have been decided, it would be open for the parties to initiate fresh proceedings
in accordance with law.”

111