Bombay High Court reserves order in succession row for Dawoodi Bohra’s leadership

Thereafter, Qutbuddin died in 2016 in the USA. Since then, his son, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, is the plaintiff and wants to be declared as the leader by the HC. Fakhruddin has claimed his father conferred the “nass” upon him and thus he should be declared the Dai. As per faith and Dawoodi Bohra doctrine, a successor is appointed through “divine inspiration”. A “nass” (conferment of succession) 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 original plaintiff deceased Qutbuddin in his suit filed in 2014 had sought from HC to restrain the late Syedna’s son from acting as the Dai alleging that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin had taken over the leadership role in a “fraudulent manner”.

Qutbuddin had claimed that after Burhanuddin became the new Dai-al-Mutlaq, taking over from his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin in 1965, he had publicly appointed his half-brother 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.

The present plaintiff Fakhruddin, through senior advocate Anand Desai had claimed his father conferred the nass upon him and thus he should be declared the Dai.

Senior advocates Iqbal Chagla, Janak Dwarkadas and Fredun Devitre for defendant Saifuddin argued that the nass of 1965 lacked witnesses and could not be accepted. They argued that as per established and prevalent doctrines of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, nass could be changed and revoked. The defendant also contended that even if nass had been conferred on the original plaintiff in 1965, as per the doctrinal belief of the community, only the last nass would be valid, therefore he was rightfully conferred to be Syedna.

Dwarkadas questioned the silence maintained by Syedna Qutbuddin about his claim to the post of Dai between 2011 and 2014, and said he only made the claim after the Dai’s demise as an “afterthought.”

Dwarkadas added that the defendant had proved through evidence his own appointment in 1969, 2005, and twice in June 2011. However, Desai submitted that the four nass on the defendant did not take place and were concocted.

The court will pronounce its verdict in due course.