Can Saif Ali Khan Keep His Inheritance? The Rs. 15,000 Crore

Introduction: Royalty in Question 

Bollywood royalty meets real-life legal drama as Saif Ali Khan finds himself entangled in a  ₹15,000 crore inheritance battle. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reopened a decades-old  dispute over ancestral properties once owned by the Nawabs of Bhopal—his maternal royal  lineage. 

What’s at stake isn’t just land and palaces, but a legacy challenged by a controversial law born  out of post-Partition tensions: the Enemy Property Act. With history, migration, and modern  law colliding, this case could redefine how India handles cross-border inheritance claims—and  royal titles may offer no protection. 

The History 

Saif Ali Khan’s roots run deep into India’s princely past. His father, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi,  was the 9th Nawab of Pataudi and a celebrated Indian cricket captain. His mother, Sharmila  Tagore, brought together royalty and cinema, further elevating the family’s social stature. But the  origin of the current dispute can be traced to the royal family of Bhopal, one of pre-Independence India’s wealthiest and most influential princely states. 

The last ruling Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan, had three daughters—Abida Begum, Sajida  Sultan, and Rabia Begum. As he had no male heir, the succession passed through the daughters.  The eldest, Abida Begum, was initially positioned as the primary heir. However, after the  Partition of India in 1947, she migrated to Pakistan in 1950 and later acquired Pakistani  citizenship. This one decision—seemingly personal at the time—has now become central to the  current inheritance conflict. 

Since Abida was no longer residing in India, the estate was passed on to Sajida Sultan, the  second daughter. She stayed in India and married Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, the 8th Nawab of  Pataudi. Their son, Mansoor Ali Khan, inherited the Bhopal estates through his mother, and following his death, the properties were passed down to his children—Saif, Soha, and Saba Ali  Khan. 

For many years, the family enjoyed peaceful ownership of the properties. But with a recent court  decision and the application of the Enemy Property Act, this legacy is now under threat—and the  Pataudi family may soon find themselves fighting to reclaim what they long believed was  unquestionably theirs. 

Enemy Property Act: Law, Controversy & Constitutional Challenges 

At the core of the government’s claim is the Enemy Property Act, 1968, originally enacted to  manage properties left behind by individuals who migrated to countries like Pakistan or China during and after conflicts such as the Indo-China War (1962) and Indo-Pakistan Wars  (1965/1971). Assets traced to these individuals were vested in a specially appointed office—the  Custodian of Enemy Property for India, stripping successors of any ownership or inheritance  rights 

The 2017 amendment significantly strengthened these provisions: 

∙ It retroactively extended the definition of “enemy” to include not just those who  migrated, but also their legal heirs, even if they are Indian. 

∙ It barred civil courts from questioning any property declaration, removing judicial  oversight entirely. 

∙ It rendered any transfer, gift, or will connected to such properties void, regardless of  when it was executed. 

Why the Law Is Controversial 

1. Retrospective Impact: It applies even to properties inherited decades ago, raising  concerns over fairness and due process. 

2. Impact on Innocents: Indian-born heirs with no link to enemy nations can lose property  without compensation.

3. Overrides Inheritance Rights: Personal laws, wills, and succession get nullified once a  property is declared enemy, sparking constitutional concerns. 

Judgment of the High Court & Its Implications 

In its verdict dated 30 June 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not decide on ownership.  Instead, it: 

∙ Set aside the 1999 judgment, calling it procedurally flawed. 

∙ Ordered a fresh trial, allowing all parties—including the government—to present new  evidence. 

∙ Instructed the lower court to consider legal changes, especially the 2017 amendments to  the Enemy Property Act. 

∙ Directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within a year. 

Issues before the Trial Court 

∙ Whether Sajida Sultan’s inheritance remains valid despite her sister Abida Begum’s  migration. 

∙ Whether Muslim Personal Law should govern the division of Nawab Hamidullah’s  estate. 

∙ Whether long-settled successions or wills can be invalidated under the retrospective  Enemy Property Act. 

∙ Whether applying such retrospective laws infringes constitutional rights like equality, due  process, and the right to property. 

Possible Outcomes 

1. Partial Ownership Restored: The court may allow Saif’s family to retain some properties  while others are declared enemy property.

2. Complete Loss of Estate: If enemy property status is upheld, all disputed assets could  pass to the Custodian, ending the Pataudi family's claims. 

3. Full Inheritance Upheld: The court may rule in favor of lawful succession through Sajida  Sultan, restoring full ownership to Saif’s family. 

4. Extended Litigation: The case may continue for years through appeals, delaying final  resolution. 

5. Settlement: A compromise between the heirs and the government may be reached outside  court to avoid further disputes. 

Recommendations for Reform 

This case highlights the need for: 

∙ Clearer inheritance guidelines when foreign migration is involved. 

∙ A definitive cut-off date for the Enemy Property Act’s application to avoid endless  uncertainty. 

∙ Judicial review and appeal rights when private property is seized. 

∙ Better awareness and documentation of property succession, especially in royal or  ancestral estates. 

Conclusion 

The dispute surrounding Saif Ali Khan’s ancestral properties is more than a celebrity headline— it’s a reminder of how unresolved legal history can suddenly return with powerful consequences.  At the heart lies a conflict between national security laws and private inheritance rights. With  properties worth ₹15,000 crore at stake and legal doctrines like enemy property, retrospective  legislation, and personal law succession clashing in court, this case could set vital precedents for  India’s legal future. Whether the court ultimately upholds the Pataudi family’s claims or  endorses the government’s classification, one thing is certain—this will be a defining chapter in  India’s evolving property jurisprudence.