1. Suit for specific performance — Compromise decree — Execution proceedings — Objections under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. Lrs. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2024, (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.18772 of 2014)
Decided On : 22-04-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Repeated and similar objections to execution of decree would not be maintainable and would amount to abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 47 and Order XXIII, Rule 3 – Objection to execution of compromise decree – Legal heir of Defendant No. 2, had previously objected to execution proceedings which was dismissed – Subsequent appeals before High Court, including a Special Leave Petition to this Court, were also dismissed – Similar objections by Respondent No. 1, in her capacity as one of legal heirs of Defendant No. 2 would not be maintainable and would amount to abuse of process of law – Executing Court had rightly rejected objections under Section 47 CPC – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside and Executing Court's order restored and objections of Respondent no.1 under Section 47 of CPC rejected. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, by Decree Holder, assails correctness of judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 passed by Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition whereby revision filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging order of Executing Court dated 03.05.2007 rejecting objections under Section 47 CPC, has been allowed. Order impugned therein passed by Executing Court was set aside and it was held that decree dated 09.05.1979 passed by Trial Court in Suit No.13/72 was inexecutable and a nullity and accordingly, objections under Section 47 CPC, were allowed.
Findings of Court:
Executing Court had rightly rejected the objections under Section 47 CPC filed by Smt.Akhtar Un Nisa vide order 03.05.2007.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
The key points from the provided legal document are as follows:
-
The appeal concerns objections raised to the execution of a decree, which were initially rejected by the Executing Court and subsequently allowed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court (!) (!) .
-
The dispute involves a property in Jaipur, originally owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin, with a history of a sale agreement, a subsequent compromise, and a decree based on that compromise (!) (!) .
-
The compromise deed, executed on 11.05.1978 and verified on 09.05.1979, was between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1, with Defendant No.2 (the vendor) acknowledging that he had no ownership rights over the property. The compromise included terms for the sale and possession, which were later decreed by the trial court (!) (!) .
-
The decree was for specific performance, requiring Defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale deed by a specified date, with provisions for the plaintiff to execute the sale through court if necessary (!) (!) .
-
Objections to the decree were raised by Defendant No.1’s legal heirs, claiming the decree was without jurisdiction and the property was jointly owned, among other grounds. These objections were dismissed by the Executing Court (!) (!) .
-
The High Court set aside the Executing Court’s order, declaring the decree void and without jurisdiction, primarily based on the assumption that the property was jointly owned by the defendants and that the compromise was invalid due to the absence of Defendant No.2’s signature (!) (!) .
-
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its reasoning, emphasizing that Defendant No.2 had acknowledged no ownership rights and had limited possession rights, which was supported by previous proceedings and family arrangements (!) .
-
The Court clarified that procedural requirements for verification of the compromise were met, even if delayed, and that the compromise was duly verified and accepted by the court (!) (!) .
-
The Court also noted that prior objections to the execution proceedings had been dismissed and that subsequent appeals, including to higher courts, upheld the validity of the decree, making similar objections by the current respondent an abuse of process (!) .
-
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC filed by the respondent were not maintainable, and the order of the High Court setting aside the decree was incorrect. The original order of the Executing Court was restored, and the objections were rejected (!) (!) .
-
No costs were awarded in the proceedings (!) .
These points collectively affirm that the decree for specific performance was valid, the objections based on joint ownership and procedural issues were unfounded, and the process followed by the courts below was appropriate and lawful.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of compromise decree — Joint ownership of suit property — Non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure — Maintainability of objections by legal heirs. (Para 5 )
3. Sole ownership established by admissions — Procedural compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 — Previous dismissal of similar objections by legal heirs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. A compromise decree is valid if the sole owner signs and the court verifies the agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Executing Court order restored — Objections under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure rejected. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Is a compromise decree invalid if one of the original defendants does not sign the compromise deed?
No, if the signatory is the sole owner of the property and the non-signatory has admitted to having no ownership rights. In such cases, the sole owner is the only necessary party for the compromise. (Para 9 )
7. Does a delay in verifying a compromise application invalidate a decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
No, provided the court eventually records its satisfaction, verifies the terms, and the parties sign the application, the procedural requirements are fulfilled regardless of prior adjournments or delays. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Can a legal heir file objections under Section 47 CPC if a previous legal heir's similar objections were already dismissed?
No, if the objections are based on the same grounds and the previous challenges were dismissed by higher courts, subsequent similar objections by other legal heirs may be considered an abuse of process. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by the Decree Holder, assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.95/2007, Smt. Akhtar Un Nisa vs. Rehan Ahmed, whereby the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081[CPC] challenging the order of the Executing Court dated 03.05.2007 rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC, has been allowed. The order impugned therein passed by the Executing Court was set aside and it was held that the decree dated 09.05.1979 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.13/72 was inexecutable and a nullity and accordingly, the objections under Section 47 CPC, were allowed.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows:
3.1. The dispute relates to property being Municipal Nos.52- 57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur which was originally owned by Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No.1). An agreement to Sell dated 04.10.1967 was executed for sale of the suit property by Saeeduddin – Defendant No.2 (brother of Defendant No.1) and also the power of attorney of Defendant No.1, for himself and for the principal Defendant No.1.
3.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell, as the vendor was not executing the sale deed, the appellant (plaintiff) instituted a Civil Suit for specific performance registered as Suit No.13/72 impleading Ghulam Mohiuddin as Defendant no.1 and Saeeduddin as Defendant No.2. During the pendency of the Suit, the parties entered into a compromise dated 11.05.1978 and presented the same before the Trial Court, a copy of which is filed as Annexure P-4. The terms of the Compromise Deed are briefly set out below:
“ANNEXURE P-4
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, CLASS-1, JAIPUR CITY, JAIPUR
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rehan Ahmad S/o. Sh. Sultan Ahmad, aged about 22 years, Caste Muslim, R/o. Chaukadi Modikhana, Rasta, Maniharan, H. No. 57, Jaipur-3
... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Gulam Mohiuddin Khan, aged about 58 years S/o. Sh. Badiuddin Khan, Caste Muslimn, R/o. Mohalla Kamnagran, Badayun (U.P) 2. Saiduddin Khan aged about 52 years S/o. Sh. Badiuddin Khan, Caste Muslim, R/o. House of Abdulramham Khan, Gali Aatishbazi Rampur (U.P)
...Defendants
3. Ahsan Ahmad S/o. Sh. Sultan Ahmad aged about 32 years, Caste Muslim, R/o. Chaukadi Modikhana, Rasta Maniharan, H.No. 57, Jaipur-3
...Pro forma Defendant
Suit for specific performance of the contract regarding house and shop situated at Modikhana, Rasta Maniharan, Jaipur 000
Most respectfully showeth:
In the above civil suit, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on under mentioned conditions, therefore, the suit may be decreed as per the compromise.
1. That, plaintiff and defendant No.3 executed an agreement for sale with the real brother and general power of attorney of Def. No.2 named Saiduddin Khan on 4.10.1967 in writing in respect to houses and shops No. 52 to 57, situated at Circle No.1, Chaukadi Modikhana, Jaipur, whose full description is given under, for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- in his own capacity and in the capacity of general power of attorney of Def. No.l, which was not accepted earlier by the defendant No.1 and 2, but now the Def. No.1 admits that agreement for sale was executed on 4.10.1967 on behalf of Def. No.2 in his own capacity and on behalf and consent of Def. No.1.
2. That, Def. No.l also admits that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of entire agreed sale consideration was received in respect to the disputed property on 4.10.1967 and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was received on 1.1.69 and Rs.500/- on 22.1.69 i.e. a total of Rs.11,500/- was received by def. No. 2 on behalf of Def No. 1 which is liable to be adjusted from the total consideration of the property, but the plaintiff and defendant No.3 have alleged to spent Rs.6,500/- in the repairing of house etc, which amount shall not be adjusted from the sale consideration because all these repairing and construction
