Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Kaushaliya – Appellant
Versus
Jodha Ram & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition No. 1868 of 2018 with I.A. No.30045 of 2019 With M.A. No.2485 of 2018 In Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of 2016
Decided on : 25-11-2019
(a) Property law - Agreement to sell - Does not confer any title, right or interest in the property - Parties never filing any suit for specific performance of the Agreement to sell - Executing court rejecting their claim - Cannot claim any ownership and/or the right title or interest in the disputed properties - They have no locus to object to Settlement Agreement between the appellant and the respondent. (Para 11)
(b) Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation - Parties to a suit referred to mediation - Their settlement need not confine to properties in the suit - They can explore possibility of an overall amicable settlement including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court - Such settlement becomes part of Court order. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Smt. Kaushaliya filed a suit for injunction against her father Jodha Ram (Respondent) with respect to some of the properties. Jodha Ram – father filed a counter claim. The counter claim came to be allowed. The matter ultimately reached Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of 2016. Pursuant to the order passed dated 24.10.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Supreme Court. Both the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 10.02.2017.
The SLP was disposed of in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017. The Court directed the petitioner – Kaushaliya to vacate the premises within 10 days and simultaneously she would be provided further accommodation which has been agreed to by the respondent. The petitioner Kaushaliya handed over some portion of the premises not all the properties/entire properties which she was required to hand over as per the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the respondent – father did not hand over the possession of the premises which he was required to hand over to the petitioner – Kaushaliya. Execution proceedings were initiated in which Kaushaliya and two persons namely Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal Bishnoi applicants in M.A. No.2485 of 2018 also submitted their objections claiming to be in possession of some of the properties namely Plot Nos.29 and 29A forming part of Jodha Bhawan, Ship House. As the respondent did not hand over the properties to the petitioner – Kaushaliya, which she was required to hand over as per the order passed by this Court she has preferred the present Contempt Petition alleging noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 by the respondent father – Jodha Ram.
Thereafter applicants Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal Bishnoi have preferred M.A. No.2485 of 2018 alleging inter alia that they are in possession of the properties bearing No.29 and 29A forming part of the Jodha Bhawan and they have purchased the said properties vide an Agreement to Sell dated 06.12.2016 for a consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of two applicants that as they are the owners of the disputed properties and they are in possession of the said properties, the settlement entered into between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and his son are not binding to them as it affects their rights.
Finding of the Court:
Agreement to sell does not confer any title, right or interest in the property.
Parties to mediation need not confine their settlement to disputes in the suit out of which mediation arises. They can arrive at an overall settlement on all disputes which then becomes part of the Court order.
Result: Contempt petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
Present petition has been filed for noncompliance of the order dated 05.05.2017 passed in this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of 2016.
2. Litigation started between the father and daughter namely Jodha Ram and Kaushaliya. Smt. Kaushaliya filed a suit for injunction against her father Jodha Ram with respect to some of the properties. Jodha Ram – father filed a counter claim. Smt. Kaushaliya lost before the Learned Trial Court. However, the counter claim came to be allowed. The matter was ultimately reached to this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of 2016. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Supreme Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Both the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 10.02.2017. As per the settlement both the parties agreed as under:
2. It is also agreed the parties that the entire sum for the registry, stamp duty, mutation etc. would be borne by the Respondent No.1 Mr. Jodha Ram.
3. It is agreed between the parties that in view of the Respondent No.1 buying the property as mentioned in clause – 1 and 2 of this settlement agreement, the petitioner shall handover complete, vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed properties (as shown in site map annexed by Petitioner in original Civil Suit No.29 of 2010 filed before Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) bearing Plot No.29D, land adjoining 29D (four parts) and land adjoining 29D (two parts) forming part of Meera Bhawan, Ship House, First Polo, Pawta, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and undisputed properties bearing Plot Nos. 29, 29A, forming part of Jodha Bhawan, Ship House, First Polo, Pawta, Jodhpur, Rajasthan to the Respondent No.1.
4. It is agreed between the parties that complete, vacant and peaceful possession of the properties mentioned in clause no.2 of this settlement agreement shall be handed over by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 simultaneously on respondent no.1 handling over registry and sale documents of property mentioned in clause – 1 of this settlement agreement in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes not to create any third party right in any manner in respect of the said property till the final settlement.
5. It is agreed between the parties that all necessary steps shall be taken by each party within eight weeks to withdraw all pending litigations between the parties shall be withdrawn by each within four weeks from the final settlement/consent order of this Hon’ble Court.
6. It is agreed between the parties that the petition pending before the sessions court Jodhpur, Rajasthan titled Kailash Vs. Jodha Ram, Kaushaliya and Ors. bearing case no.9 of 2011 will also be settled between the parties. Aforesaid petition is
with regard to ten LIC bonds of Rs.50,000/each bearing Nos.104200480, 104200481, 104200482, 104200483, 104200484, 104200485, 104200486, 104200487, 104200491 and 104200501, date of proposal of all bonds being 19.03.2007 and date of commencement of being 20.03.2007 for a term of ten years, totaling Rs.5 Lakh, the proceeds of which shall be shared in equal proportion between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein Shri Kailash by way of two separate cheques of equal amounts to be received by petitioner and Respondent No.2 from LIC.
7. By signing this agreement, the parties hereto solemnly state and affirm that they have no further claims or demands against each other in respect of the property measuring on all the disputes and differences between the p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
