Rushdie fights for house in India

AS SALMAN RUSHDIE began his first weekend of liberty since the lifting of the fatwa against him, his freedom was tarnished by a row stopping him from living in his father's Delhi house.

The author of The Satanic Verses wants to spend more time in the country of his birth, and with the lifting of the fatwa, which called on Muslims to carry out a death sentence on the writer, he is now free to travel to India, where he has not set foot since the mid-Eighties.

"I always used to go to India for part of every year, sometimes for a long time," he said on Friday, "and I would obviously like to resume doing that."

For his return, his lawyers have been instructed to gain possession of luxury properties in Delhi and the Himalayan foothills, once owned by his wealthy father, Anees Ahmed Rushdie. "He is very keen to come to India, it is his muse," said lawyer Vijay Shankardass.

The Delhi house is a seven-bedroom property in the upmarket enclave known as Civil Lines. Set in more than an acre of land, it could be worth more than pounds 2m. But he must first prise out the occupants.

Bikku Ram Jain, 82, a businessman and influential local politician installed his son, Arvind, in a part of the property. Arvind insists that his family holds the title deeds to the entire property, having persuaded Mr Rushdie's father to sell it in 1970.

In 1984 they won a court judgment supporting the claims, though it was subsequently the subject of an appeal.

To add a further twist, there was a suspicious death on the premises a year ago, in the part of the disputed house occupied by another family, the Lals.

The four brothers had gathered to discuss the Rushdie claim. Inder Mohan Lal, 72, flew into a rage at one of his brothers and they started scuffling, at which point he reportedly told the servants "my brother has killed me", then clutched his chest and had a fatal heart attack. Jag Mohan Lal was arrested and charged with murder, but was later released.

Mr Rushdie's lawyers argued that since I M Lal had died without dependants, none of his relatives had the right to live on in the house. The case is still before the court.

Picture, page 2; Focus, page 23; Ursula Owen, Culture