His daughter has filed a fresh affidavit disputing the validity of govt’s claim that a succession certificate was issued on January 11, 1962, for the execution of Jinnah’s will in favour of his sister, Fatima
MUMBAI: The legal battle for the ownership of Jinnah House, the sprawling Malabar Hill bungalow built by Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, is getting murkier.
Jinnah’s daughter, Dina Wadia, who has filed a petition in Bombay High Court seeking to claim the bungalow, has filed a fresh affidavit disputing the government’s claim that a succession certificate was issued on January 11, 1962, for the execution of Jinnah’s will in favour of his sister, Fatima. Wadia, 88, has also denied the government’s claim that Jinnah had disinherited her from his property.
She married textile tsar Neville Wadia in 1938 against her father’s wishe and stayed in India after the Partition. In 1962, she moved to the US after separating from her husband.
The case is likley to be heard on December 10.
Wadia, who resides in New York, moved HC in July, labelling the government’s move to take over Jinnah House in 1949 by declaring it to be an “evacuee property” to be illegal. She alleged that it was based on a wrong premise that Jinnah had willed the property to his sister, Fatima, who was declared an evacuee when she left for Pakistan in 1947.
Wadia contended that Jinnah’s will was never probated, and hence, had no legal standing in India. So, being Jinnah’s only child and the sole legal heir, she was entitled to the bungalow.
However, on October 3, the government filed an affidavit stating that Jinnah’s will, which was executed on May 30, 1939, bequeathed the bungalow to Fatima, who even obtained a succession certificate from Bombay HC on January 11, 1962 for the execution of the will.
Wadia’s latest affidavit, filed last week, stated, “Significantly, the respondents (Central government) even today did not produce any will of Mr Jinnah, dated May 30, 1939, or even a copy thereof.” It added that despite repeated requests, the government had not provided her a copy of the alleged succession certificate, nor allowed her lawyers to inspect the document.
Also, when her lawyers conducted a search of the records at the HC, they did not find a succession certificate issued on January 11, 1962. Instead, they came across one dated June 11, 1962.
The affidavit added that a succession certificate would merely empower the holder with the authority to realise debts and securities of the deceased person. The mandatory legal requirement that a will must be probated to be recognised in India, could not be diluted by the issuance of a succession certificate.
The affidavit went on to say that in December 1962, land records pertaining to the bungalow were changed to show the Indian government as the bungalow owner. Fatima was never shown as the owner of the bungalow.
The affidavit added that in 2002, the Attorney General had accepted her claim to be the sole legal heir and recommended that she be given a long lease of the bungalow. However, in July 2002, the government changed and the lease was never executed.
