Sunday, 8 December 2019

Supreme Court: Disputes About Properties Which Are Not Subject Matter Of Litigation Can Be Settled In 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 Court’s 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.
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL CONTEMPT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2018

KAUSHALIYA Vs  JODHA RAM 
Dated:November 25, 2019

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:
“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 Hon’ble 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 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 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 abovementioned
Agreement,
which have been arrived without any coercion,
duress or collusion 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 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.
However, did not hand over all the properties/entire properties
which she was required to hand over as per the Settlement
Agreement and the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the
respondent – father did not hand over the possession of the
premises which he was required to hand over by 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 (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 passed 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. No.30045 of 2019
for an appropriate order directing the Executing Court to hand
over the vacant and peaceful possession of entire Meera Bhawan
and Jodha Bhawan in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated
10.02.2017 and the orders dated 05.05.2017 and 11.12.2018
passed in present proceedings. 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 handover 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 she has vacated and other
portions are in possession of third parties. It is in
respect thereof 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 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.
5. Ms. Bhati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
daughter has vehemently submitted that she is required to be
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 was 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 refused
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 that
both Kaushaliya and Ramu Ram are acting in collusion. It is
requested to dismiss 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 has 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 dated
10.02.2017 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 of
2016 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 Court’s 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

Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment