SATYA JAIN (D) vs ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 461

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. - Appellant(s)
Versus
ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS ... Respondent(s)
I.A. NOS. 3-5 & I.A. D.No. 37212 OF 2013
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8653 OF 2012
With
I.A. NOS. 12-13 & 14-15 OF 2013
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8675-8676 OF 2012
Decided On : May 8, 2013.

Headnote:Supreme Court Rules, 1966-Application seeking impleadment/clarification/modification/ correction of judgment passed by High Court- An application for modification/clarification of a final order passed by this Court is not contemplated by the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which specifically provides the remedy of review and also lays down the procedure governing the consideration of a review application by this Court- Insofar as I.A. Nos.3-5 were concerned, the facts stated therein, on the basis of which prayer for modification/clarification had been made, were not before the Court at the time when the judgment was rendered- In I.A. Nos.14-15 reliefs sought were based on facts and events which had occurred subsequent to the order of this Court- Said I.As. held not be maintainable -The applicants sought to reopen concluded issues and alteration of consequential directions which had attained finality- Such a course of action was not permissible -I.A. Nos.3-5, 14-15 disposed of (Paras 12, 13)
        Execution of sale deed -Prayer for clarification/modification of the direction for execution of the sale deed-Plea on which such modification had been sought was that during the pendency of the appeals all rights in the suit property had been transferred by defendant-respondents to one Fine Properties Private Limited for valuable consideration and hence said defendant-respondents were not entitled to any relief much less the relief of the market value of the property- Facts surrounding the alleged transfer of the suit property or the rights over said property by defendant-respondents to Fine Properties Private Limited were not before the Court at the time of hearing of the appeals in question or even at the time when the judgment was rendered- Though the said facts along with the supporting documents were filed by way of an additional paper book no specific order of the Court was sought or granted to the appellants to rely on the said documents- In such circumstances, said facts now sought to be brought on record could not be a legitimate basis for any modification of our judgment even if the I.As. in question were construed to be applications for review of judgment -Applications disposed of (Paras 16 to 21)
       Facts of the Case :
        Applications were filed herein in the instant case seeking impleadment/clarification/modification/ correction of judgment passed by High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Apex Court held that An application for modification/clarification of a final order passed by this Court is not contemplated by the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which specifically provides the remedy of review and also lays down the procedure governing the consideration of a review application by this Court. Insofar as I.A. Nos.3-5 were concerned, the facts stated therein, on the basis of which prayer for modification/clarification had been made, were not before the Court at the time when the judgment was rendered. In I.A. Nos.14-15 reliefs sought were based on facts and events which had occurred subsequent to the order of this Court. Said I.As. held not be maintainable .The applicants sought to reopen concluded issues and alteration of consequential directions which had attained finality. Such a course of action was not permissible .I.A. Nos.3-5, 14-15 were disposed of
       Result : Applications disposed of

ORDER

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012 and other connected appeals were allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 3.12.2012. The decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Delhi in RFA (OS) No. 11/1984 was set aside and the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs 1 (since deceased), 2 and 3 was decreed in the following terms :-

“30....We are of the further view that the sale deed that will now have to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs will be for the market price of the suit property as on the date of the present order. As No material, whatsoever is available to enable us to make a correct assessment of the market value of the suit property as on date we request the learned trial judge of the High Court of Delhi to undertake the said exercise with such expedition as may be possible in the prevailing facts and circumstances.

31. All the appeals shall accordingly stand allowed in terms of our above conclusions and directions.”

2. I.A. Nos. 3-5, 12-13, 14-15 and D.No. 37212 of 2013 have been filed seeking impleadment/clarification/modification/ correction of the judgment dated 3.12.2012, in the circumstances noted below.

3. I.A. Nos. 3-5 have been filed by one Amit Jain, Rahul Jain and Smt. Aruna Jain contending that during the pendency of the Civil Appeal before this Court, out of total suit property measuring 5373 Sq. Yds., two parcels measuring 1500 Sq. Yds., in all, were sold by Ms. Sameen Rushdie Momen (respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No. 8653/2012 and Respondent 1B in Civil Appeals No. 8675-76 of 2012) in favour of the applicants. On the said basis, the applicants seek impleadment and clarification of the judgment dated 3.12.2012 to mean that the successor-in-interest of the original defendant (late Anis Ahmed Rushdie) i.e. Ms. Sameen Rushdie Momen, has been left with the right of ownership in respect of only 3873 Sq. Yds. of the property situated at No. 4, Flag Staff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.

4. I.A. Nos. 12-13 have been filed by Narender Jain and Arvind Jain (original plaintiffs No.2 & 3) seeking the following reliefs :-

“(a) modify/clarify/correct Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2012 as mentioned in the present application;

(b) correct the typographical errors in the judgment and order dated 3.12.2012 as mentioned in Paragraph 8 of this application;

(c) pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

5. In the aforesaid I.As. the applicants have, inter alia, stated that Ms. Sameen Rushdie Momen who is the legal heir/ successor-in-interest of the deceased sole defendant Anis Ahmed Rushdie (by virtue of a Will dated 9.1.1984 executed by Anis Ahmed Rushdie and accepted by the other legal heirs) had executed a irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 4.11.2010 with consideration in favour of one Fine Properties Private Limited disposing of all her rights, shares and interest etc. in the suit property “as on whereon basis” subject to the following salient terms:-

“1. That, the FIRST-PARTY agrees to absolutely grant to the SECOND-PARTY all his rights, shares, interest, liens, registrations clear-titles, etc. in the un- encumbered plot/property/ house bearing no. 4, Flag Staff Road, Delhi-110054 alongwith: unauthorized Occupant/ User (i.e. late Sh. BHIKU RAM JAIN): and another unauthorized-Occupant/ User (i.e. legal-heirs of late Mr. I.M. Lal): and portion of the property in possession of the FIRST-PARTY.

And the SECOND PARTY has accepted to be the Attorney for the purchase acquisition and possessing of the entire-property, for the total CONSIDERATION of Rs.4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four-Crores and Fifty Lacs) only through this presently executed and registered G.P.A.

Sufficiency of the above CONSIDERATION for signing and executing of this G.P.A. is hereby acknowledged (payments and receipts) by both Parties.

(vii) Para 6 of the said General Power of Attorney

Click Here to Read the rest of this document