SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kaushaliya Vs. Jodha Ram [25/11/19]

Section

Kaushaliya Vs. Jodha Ram Ors.

[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]

M. R. Shah, J.

1.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:

“1. It is agreed between the parties that Respondent No.1 (Shri
Jodha Ram) i.e. Father of the Petitioner shall purchase another plot bearing
No.55, Hudco Scheme, DCircle, Kirti Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, admeasuring (30
X 13) 390 Sq.Ft., and get it registered in the name of the Petitioner Ms. Kaushaliya
within four weeks from the final settlement/consent order of this Honble
Court.

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 Honble 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.50000/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 here to solemnly state
and affirm that they have further claims or demands against each other in
respect of the property measuring on all the disputes and differences between
the parties relating to the subject matter of the suit have been amicably
settled by the parties hereto through the process of mediation.

8. The parties undertake to abide by the terms and condition set
out in the above mentioned Agreement, which have been arrived without any
coercion, duress or sollusion and undertake not to raise any dispute
whatsoever henceforth.

3. This Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 disposed of the aforesaid
special leave Petition in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017.
This court directed that both the parties shall abide by the settlement. This
Court also further directed the petitioner – Kaushaliya to vacate the premises within10
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. However, did not hand over all the properties/entire
properties which she was required o hand over as per the Settlement Agreement
and the order passed by this court. Therefore, the respondent – father did not
hand over the possession the premises which he was required to hand over by the
petitioner – Kaushaliya.

Execution proceedings were initiated in which Kaushaliya
and wo persons namely Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal Bishnoi applicants in .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 art of Jodha Bhawan,
Ship House (hereinafter referred to as disputed premises). 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 No.1868 of 2018 alleging noncompliance of the
order assed by this Court in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 by the respondent
father Jodha Ram.

In the Contempt Petition, Jodha Ram and others have filed
I.A. o.30045 of 2019 for an appropriate order directing the Executing Court to
handover the vacant and peaceful possession of entire Meera Bhawan and Jodha
Bhawan in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and he orders
dated 05.05.2017 and 11.12.2018 passed in present roceedings. order passed by
this Court dated 11.12.2018 is as under: “After
hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and, particularly, after
perusing the order dated 13.09.2017 of the Executing Court, we adjourn these
matters by four months We may record that in the Settlement Agreement, which
was arrived at between the petitioner and her father, it was agreed by the petitioner
that she would hand over vacant possession of Jodha Bhawan and Meera Bhawan to
her father.

Now she has come up with the plea that only a portion of the said
house was in her possession which he has vacated and other portions are in
possession of third parties. It is in respect there of that execution
proceedings are pending.We also find from the records that insofar as Respondent
No.1/father of the petitioner is concerned, he has purchased one house which is
to the liking of the petitioner herself and to show his bona fide, he has
deposited the keys thereof as well with the Executing court. His only plea is
that the possession thereof should be handed over to the petitioner after he
gets possession of Jodha Bhawan and Meera Bhawan. In the circumstances, we impress
upon the Executing Court to expedite the execution proceedings.”

4. Thereafter applicants Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal Bishnoi
have referred 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 in
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 hem as it
affects their rights.

5. Ms. Bhati, learned Senior Advocate spearing n behalf of the
daughter has vehemently submitted that she is required to the handed over the
possession of the properties mentioned in the agreement which the respondent
Jodha Ram is required to hand over. It is submitted that she has already
vacated that part of the premises which she as required to hand over to the
extent she was in possession. It is submitted that therefore she has fulfilled her
part of commitment as per the settlement agreement.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Jodha ram has vehemently
submitted that as such applicants of M.A. No.2485 of 2018 have no right title in the disputed properties in Jodha
House. It is submitted that they have no locus whatsoever in the
present proceedings as well as before the Executing Court. It is submitted that
those applicants claim to be in possession and title on the basis of the agreement
to Sell. It is submitted that Agreement to sell does not confer any right title
or interest. It is submitted that till date those two applicants have never
filed any suit claiming title/ownership. It is submitted that the suit for permanent
injunction was filed in which the learned Trial Court has effused to grant any
interim injunction in their favour. It is submitted that at the relevant time
applicant No.1 Ramu Ram Vishnoi paid only Rs.51,000/in the year 2006, however,
he did not make any further payment and therefore the Agreement to Sell was
cancelled by serving a legal notice in the year 2007 itself.

It is further submitted
that even the applicant Ramu ram, though had no title/ownership transferred
the said property on the strength of the Agreement to Sell to one Kishan Gopal
Singh on 08.09.2013. It is submitted that Ramu Ram in the said agreement
claimed that he purchased the suit property from Jodha Ram and sale deed was executed
between them. It is submitted that therefore the applicants Ramu Ram and rampal
are claiming to be the owners and in possession pursuant to agreement to Sell
only. It is submitted that even the applicants Ramu Ram filed the Objection Petition/Objections
Proceedings before the Executing court along with Kaushaliya which came to be
dismissed. It is submitted hat both Kaushaliya and Ramu Ram are acting in
collusion. It is requested to ismiss the application preferred by Ramu Ram Vishnoi
and Rampal and also the contempt petition initiated by Kaushaliya. It is
requested to direct the Executing Court to hand over the possession of the
entire properties, which Jodha Ram is entitled pursuant to order passed by
this Court and as per the Settlement dated 10.02.2017.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal
Bishnoi as submitted that they are the owners of the premise Nos. 29 and 29A
forming part of Jodha Bhawan, Ship House pursuant to the Agreement to sell for
a sale consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. It is submitted that as they are in
possession of the said premises/properties and neither Kaushaliya nor Jodha Ram
and his son have any right title. It is submitted that in any case, the
aforesaid properties cannot be said to be undisputed properties. It is
submitted that therefore in the Settlement dated10.02.2017 it is stated that
the properties in Jodha Bhawan is undisputed property of Jodha Ram the same is
not correct. It is submitted that in any case when they are in possession of
the disputed properties settlement between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram before this
Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of2016 and the order passed by
this Court dated 05.05.2017 is not binding to them.

7.1 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the aforesaid Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal that even otherwise the dispute
between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram which went upto this Court by way of SLP (C)
No.10022 of 2016 was not with respect to the disputed properties, more
particularly, Plot Nos.29 29A. It is submitted that therefore as the disputed
properties in question were not the subject matter of the original suit, the
disputed properties could not have been the subject matter of the order dated
05.05.2017 and/or Settlement between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram. For the above, Learned
Counsel has relied upon the map attached with the plaint.

7.2 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow M.A. No.2485 of 2018 and recall the final order dated 05.05.2017 passed
in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 to the extend with respect to Plot No.29 and 29A of
the Jodha House.

8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties respectively
at length.

9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute
was between Kaushaliya – daughter and Jodha Ram – father; that matter
ultimately reached to this Court by way of SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016. The matter
was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility
of amicable settlement between the parties. In the Mediation, the parties to
the SLP namely Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram entered into a Settlement Agreement
dated 10.02.2017 and resolved the entire dispute between the parties over and
above the dispute before the Trial Court. This Court disposed of the SLP in
terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and directed both the
parties to abide by the terms of the Settlement produced above.

10. It is the case on behalf of Kaushaliya that she has been ousted
from the premises that was in her possession on 30.03.2018, however, she has
not been given the other accommodation which was agreed to be given
simultaneously by Jodha Ram. However, on the other hand, it is the case on
behalf of Jodha Ram that Kaushaliya has not vacated the entire premises and he
has not been handed over the possession or occupation of entire Jodha House
more particularly Plot No.29 and 29A of the Jodha House which he is entitled to under the Settlement Agreement
dated 10.02.2017.

Applicants of M.A. No.2485 of 2018 claimed to be in
possession of the aforesaid Plots Nos.29 and 29A on the basis of the Agreement
to Sell executed by Jodha Ram and they claim to be the owners and they are
objecting to the order dated 05.05.2017 passed in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016.
However, it is requested to be noted that Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal Bhisnoi
claim to be the owners and in possession pursuant to Agreement to Sell dated
10.02.2017. As per the settled preposition of law, Agreement to Sell does not
confer any right, title or interest in the property. Therefore, as such on the
basis of the Agreement to Sell, only Ramu Ram and Rampal cannot claim any
ownership and/or right title or interest in the disputed properties. Apart from
that even the Trial Court in the suit for permanent injunction filed by them
has refused to grant injunction in their favour.

11. At this stage, it is required to be noted that except filing
the suit for permanent injunction, Ramu Ram and Rampal, who claim to be the
Agreement to Sell in their favour, has never filed any suit for specific
performance of the alleged Agreement to Sell. It also appears that even the
objection raised by them and Kaushaliya filed before the Executing Court have
been rejected by the Executing Court. Under the circumstances, the applicants
of M.A. No.2485 of 2018 cannot claim any ownership and/or the right title or
interest in the disputed properties and therefore they have no locus to object to the Settlement Agreement between Kaushaliya and
Jodha Ram and the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by this Court in SLP (C)
No.10022 of 2016. Under the circumstances, the M.A. No.2485 of 2016 deserves to
be dismissed, however, without prejudice to their rights, if any, to be
established in a Competent Court of law.

12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram that as the
disputed properties in question were not the subject matter of original suit
proceedings and therefore the same could not have been the subject matter of
Settlement Agreement entered into between the Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and/or
the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 is concerned, at the outset, it
is required to be noted that being the dispute between father and daughter the
matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore an
amicable settlement between the parties.

Both the parties agreed to settle all the disputes between the parties
in the Mediation. In the Mediation it is always open for the parties to explore
the possibility of an overall amicable settlement including the disputes which
are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. That is the
benefit of the Mediation. In the Mediation parties may try for amicable
settlement, which is reduced into writing and/or a Settlement Agreement and thereafter
it becomes the part of the Courts Order and the Court disposes of the matter
in terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Thereafter the order in terms of the
Settlement Agreement is executable irrespective of the fact whether the
Settlement Agreement is with respect to the properties which was/were not the
subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. Thereafter the order passed
by the Court in terms of the Settlement is binding to the parties and is
required to be acted upon and/or complied with and as observed above the same
is executable. Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram
and Rampal that as the properties in question were not the subject matter of
the suit before the Trial, the same could have been the subject matter of the
Settlement Agreement and/or the order dated 05.05.2017 cannot be accepted. The
order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is
required to be complied with and the same is executable. Under the
circumstances the Executing Court has to execute the order passed by this Court
dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 in its true spirit.

13. In view of the reasons stated above, M.A. No.2485 of 2018 stands
dismissed. I.A. No.30045 of 2019 is hereby allowed. In exercise of powers
conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to see that the
order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is
fully complied with, we direct all the concerned persons claiming to be in
possession of the disputed properties in questions including Plot Nos. 29 and
29A of the Jodha House to handover the peaceful and vacant possession to Jodha
Ram as per the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of
2016, within a period of four weeks from today. Executing Court is hereby
directed to see that the present order passed by this Court and its earlier
order dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 is fully complied with. Both the parties
Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram parties to the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017
are hereby directed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP
(C) No.10022 of 2016 fully and in its true spirit. Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of at this stage.

……………………………J. (ASHOK
BHUSHAN)

……………………………J. (M. R.
SHAH)

New Delhi;

November 25, 2019

Section SectionBack

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation