Blog

Case Title – Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS.

Case Number – Civil Appeal of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18772 of 2014

Dated on – 21^st March,2014

Quorum – Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Case of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS., revolves around a property Municipal Nos.52-57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur, initially owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin (RespondentNo-1). On the 4^th of October,1967, an agreement to sale was signed by Saeeduddin (RespondentNo.2), the brother of Respondent No.1 who was acting under power of attorney for RespondentNo.1. However, as the vendor did not satisfy the commitment to execute the sale deed, the Appellant initiated a Civil Suit for the purpose of specific performance, registered as Suit No. 13/72, stating Ghulam Mohiuddin as the Respondent No. 1 and Saeeduddin as the Respondent No. 2. Amidst the pendency of the lawsuit, the parties arrived at a compromise on the 11^th of May, 1978, which was submitted for endorsement to the Trial Court.  In the compromise deed the Respondent No.1 consented to execute and register the sale deed in the favour of the Appellant by 1^st of July,1978 after receiving a payment of Rupees 25,000. Nonetheless, the Respondent No.1 again failed to fulfil certain obligations, including obtaining a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) and ensured that the Respondent No.2 evacuates a portion of the property. Despite the procedural delays, the compromise was verified by the court on the 9^th of May,1979 and a decree was issued based on the terms and conditions of the compromise. The proceedings related to the execution were initiated by the Appellant when the Respondent No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the objections filed by Akhtar Un Nisa, the wife of the Respondent No.2, claiming that the decree issued was void.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

1. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the compromise arrived between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 was valid and binding as per the law.
2. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the Respondent No.2 possessed absolutely no ownership rights over the property, as proved by his Written Statement that was submitted to the Trial Court and the previous legal proceedings.
3. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the verification of the compromise was appropriately done by the court, fulfilling all the requirements of the Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. The Appellant, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that the objections that were raise priorly by the General Tarik, a legal heir of the Respondent No.2, were duly dismissed by the High Court indicating the lack of merit in similar objections raised by Akhtar Un Nisa, the wife of the RespondentNo.2.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that as the signature of the Respondent No. 2 was not obtained on the compromise decree and that he was a Co-owner of the property, the decree was null and void.
2. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that it was failure on the part of the Trial Court to adhere to the provisions of the Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 regarding the verification of the compromise.
3. The Respondent, through their Counsel, the present case, contented that Akhtar Un Nisa, as the legal heir of the RespondentNo.2, had the right to challenge the validity of the decree through the objections under the Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Whether the compromise held between the Appellant and the RespondentNo.1 was valid and binding?
2. Whether the compromise was properly verified in accordance to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Trial Court?
3. Whether the objections put forth by Akhtar Un Nisa be considered valid taking into consideration that the General Tarik’s similar objection was dismissed?

ISSUES

1. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 provides the addressing of the matters concerning the satisfaction or the discharge of the decrees.
2. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 deals with the recording and enforcement of the compromises.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRS. Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRS., held the validity of the compromise between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 as the Respondent No.2 possessed no rights of ownership over the property. The court observed that the Trial Court verified the compromise deed properly despite of procedural delays. The court stated that considering the dismissal of similar objections by the General Tarik in previous legal proceedings, the objections raised by Akhtar Un Nisa were deemed not maintainable. Therefore, the court ruled that the appeal was allowed and that the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The court restored the executing court’s order rejecting the objections and that no costs were rewarded.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment