The Patna Case

(1777-1779)
 The Facts of this case:-

• The Patna case happened in the years from 1777 to

1779.
• Shahbaz Beg Khan came to Patna from Kabul and
served in the Company army.
• After retirement from the Company’s service he
settled down in Patna and married Naderah Begum
from whom he had no child.
• As he did not have any children, he called his nephew
Behdar Beg from Kabul to stay with him and he
expressed his desire to adopt him.
• Sahbaz Beg Khan expressed his desire to hand over
all his property to his nephew Behdar Beg.
• Sahbaz Beg Khan died in 1776.
• On Sahbaz Beg’s death, dispute for inheritance arose
between the widow Naderah Begum and the nephew
Behdar Beg.
• Each of them claiming the whole property of the
deceased, Sahbaz Beg.
• Naderah under a gift (Hibbanama) alleged to have
been executed by her husband, and the nephew as
adopted son.
• On 2nd January 1777, Behdar Beg filed a suit in Patna
Council alleging that he was the adopted son of
Sahbaz Beg and therefore, entitled to the entire
property.
• He also prayed that Naderah Begum be stopped from
removing the property and the property already
removed be restored.
 The Legal Setup in 1774

• The Patna Provincial Council also functioned as the

Diwani Court for the town under the Warren Hastings
plan of 1774.

• As per the English laws, the judges were helped by

the Qazis to understand the customs and laws of the
community.
 The Proceedings of the Case

• On 2nd January, The Patna Council ordered the Qazi

and the two Muftis to take stock of Sahbaz’s property
and allot shares to each claimant according to Muslim
law.
• On 20th January after listening to both sides, the Qazi
and the Muftis reported back to the Council. They
reported that the gift deed was forged abd that the
property be divided into 4 parts.
• They wanted 3 parts to go to Behdar and the
remaining part to Naderah Begum.
• According to the Qazi and the Muftis, since Behdar’s
father was the legal heir of the property and since
Behdar was the adopted son, he was entitled to the
greater share.
• The law officers started executing the order of the
Patna Council, this was resisted by Naderah Begum.
• Feeling humiliated she left Patna and took refuge in a
Durgah.
• She then came to Calcutta and filed a case of trespass
and assault against the Qazi, Muftis and Behdar Beg
in The Supreme Court.
• The Governor General and Council resolved to
defend the case on behalf of the defendants because
they were being prosecuted in the exercise of their
judicial powers.
• There were certain issues before the court that had to
be decided by it-
i) whether Behdar Beg was subject to jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court?
ii) whether the officers were liable for prosecution for
performing their duties?
• The Court decided that since Behdar was a farmer of
revenue and was not different from the Revenue
Collector and was therefore directly or indirectly in
the service of the Company.
• On the other issue, the Court held that although the
Patna Council had jurisdiction to decide civil disputes
between the locals, it had no jurisdiction to delegate
it’s functions to it’s law officers.
 The Verdict of The Supreme Court

• Since the Court found Naderah in possession of the

property at the time the defendants proceeded against
her, their guilt was established.
• The Court issued bail able arrest warrants against
Behdar, the Qazi , the Muftis.
• The Supreme Court also awarded Rs. 30,000
damages and Rs. 9,208-8 annas as cost to Naderah.
• The defendants were brought to Calcutta and were
jailed because they failed to pay the damages
awarded by The Supreme Court.
• The Court found the gift deed to be true and valid.
• It also held that the Patna Council, the Qazi, and the
Muftis did not perform their duties according to the
procedure of law.
• The Supreme Court in a fresh case filed by Naderah
Begum held that the entire proceedings were illegal
and corrupt and awarded a further Rs. 15,000 as
damages.
 Conclusions:-

• This case is an example of conflict between the

Company’s courts and The Supreme Court and the
obscurity of the jurisdiction of The Supreme Court.
• It also throws light on the irregularities committed by
the Provincial Councils in leaving their function to
the law officers and The Supreme Courts’s concern to
condemn it.
• Also showed the rampant corruption in the ranks of
the Company.
 REFERENCES

• M.P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal History, Wadhwa

& Co, Nagpur,2003(6th Edn)
• V.D. Kulshrehtha and V.M. Gandhi, Landmarks of
Indian Legal and Constitutional History,Eastern
Book Company, Kurukshetra,2005
• M.P. Singh, Outlines of Indian Legal History,
Universal Law Publishing Co., 2010