Page 262 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

118
about the year 1830 to Calcutta, where he settled as a trader, and took out letters
of naturalization as a British subject. Haji Baba had, with other issue, a son,
named Mahomed Hussain, born in Calcutta, and Mahomed Hussain had a son,
who is the Malek-ut*Tujjar in question, also born in Calcutta. Subsequently
Mahomed Hussain died while on pilgrimage to Kcrbella, and the grandfather.
Haji Baba, in 1870 removed to Bushire with the grandson, the Malek, and
settled there.
404. From 1870 continuously up to 1888 the Malek-ut-Tujjar resided at
Bushire, and, while there, held offices under the Persian Government, including
that of Governor of Bushire. During this period he succeeded to the property
of his grandfather and his two great-uncles and thus became involved in disputes
with a nephew of the wife of Haji Abdul Mahomed, who is known as the Muin-
ut-Tujjar. Finally, on the 19th April 1888, the Malek registered himself as
a British Indian subject at the British Consulate. In the latter part of that
year he removed with his family to Bombay, where he had since lived, leaving
agents in Persia to look after his interests there. In 1892 an application was
made by the Moin-ut-Tujjar to the Persian Government for permission to take
possession of immoveable property at Bushire belonging to the Malek, on the.
strength of certain documents of transfer said to have been executed by the
latter.
405. The Resident’s original view of the matter, in which Her Majesty’s
Minister at Tehran expressed his concurrence, was that the case was governed
by the ruling conveyed by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
in his despatch0 No. 49, dated A4th July
• Patn graph 391 above.
1876, to Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran,
viz., •• that a man born of Persian parents in Her Majesty’s dominions cannot
in Persia claim or be entitled to the privileges of a British subject, but is in
Persia subject to all the obligations which the law of Persia imposes upon its
own subjects.” According to this view the Malek could not claim in Persia
the status of a British Indian subject. The Resident, however, modified
this view in consequence of the receipt
t Paragraph 401 above.
of the Foreign Department letterf No.
924-E., dated the 19th May, which he understood to contain the ruling that
registration as British subject, such as that affected by the Malek-ut-Tujjar at
the Consulate, is binding unless invalidated by subject non-residence, and that
a person so registered can claim protection against Persian Government.
406. The Government of India pointed out that Resident had misapprehended
Foreign Department letter of the 19th May. The question, with reference to
which that letter was written, was merely whether he had the power to revise
the list of persons registerad as British and protected subjects, and the question
was decided in the negative, on the grounds that the fact of registration of
person’s name was merely evidence that a claim to be considered a British
subject had been advanced, and was not so preposterous as to be summarily
rejected j but that registration does not bind eve?i the Consul to treat a person
so registered as British subject, ij not so in fact, and certainly does not operate
as conclusive proof that such a person possesses the status claimed.
407. As regards the particular case referred to them, the Government of
India were of opinion that, although the Malek-ut-Tujjar was, reason of his birth
within British dominions, of a father who was then a British subject—a natural
born British subject, his long and continuous residence at Bushire, combined
with the fact of his entry into Persian service, warranted the conclusion that he
had afterwards adopted a Persian domicile; and it was at least questionable
whether his somewhat recent removal to Bombay , had taken place under circum­
stances sufficient to revive his domicile of origin. This being the position, and
in the absence of any treaty stipulations to the contrary, the Malek’s rights to
both immoveable and moveable property at Bushire should be determined by the
Persian Courts. The question of domicile would in any case only affect the claim
tolmoveable property, and that, even if the case were one for the intervention of
the Consul, the right of the Malek to immoveable property would be governed by
the Persian law (No. i65-E., dated 8th September 1892).