Law Web: 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