Rehan Ahmed (D) through LRs. vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) through LRs. (Supreme Court, 22 April 2024)
Background
The dispute centered on a property that originally belonged to Ghulam Mohiuddin (Defendant No. 1). In 1967, an agreement to sell was executed by Saeeduddin (Defendant No. 2), acting as power of attorney for Defendant No. 1. When the sale was not completed, Rehan Ahmed (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance in 1972. During the proceedings, a compromise was reached in 1978, recognizing Defendant No. 1 as the sole owner and requiring him to execute and register the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of the balance amount. The compromise was duly recorded and verified by the trial court, resulting in a decree in 1979.
Execution and Objections
Despite the decree, Defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed, prompting execution proceedings by the plaintiff. After Defendant No. 1’s death, his legal heirs and those of Defendant No. 2, including Akhtar Un Nisa, repeatedly filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing the decree was a nullity due to alleged joint ownership and procedural lapses. The Executing Court dismissed these objections, finding that the compromise was valid and that Defendant No. 2 had already disclaimed ownership.
High Court and Supreme Court Proceedings
Akhtar Un Nisa challenged the Executing Court’s order in the Rajasthan High Court, which in 2014 set aside the Executing Court’s order and declared the compromise decree void, citing procedural deficiencies and questions about the compromise’s validity. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, found that the High Court had erred in its reasoning. The Court emphasized that:
The compromise was properly recorded and verified as per Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, with both defendants signing the final compromise application.
Defendant No. 2 had explicitly disclaimed any ownership rights, and previous objections by legal heirs had already been dismissed, precluding repetitive challenges by Akhtar Un Nisa.
The repeated objections constituted an abuse of process, as the issues raised had been settled in earlier proceedings.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court restored the Executing Court’s order dismissing the objections and set aside the High Court’s order. It held that a decree based on a duly verified compromise cannot be challenged by legal heirs who were already bound by earlier decisions. The Court reaffirmed the principle that compromise decrees, once verified and recorded in accordance with procedural law, attain finality and cannot be repeatedly questioned on the same grounds.
Significance
This judgment underscores the finality of compromise decrees and the bar on repetitive objections under Section 47 CPC, reinforcing the integrity of execution proceedings and the need to prevent abuse of judicial process.
Citation: Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRs., [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694 : 2024 INSC 329, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 22 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments