advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Contempt of Court - suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction- compromise decree with some of the defendants - when patwari and Thasildar entered the name of non-compromised party defying the compromise decree - not amounts to wilful disobedience of court order and not amount to contempt of court = Nafis Ahmad & Another ... Petitioners versus Narain Singh & Others ... Respondents = 2014( February part) judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41197

Contempt of Court - suit  for declaration  of  their  title  and  permanent  injunction-  compromise decree with some of the defendants - when patwari  and Thasildar entered the name of non-compromised party defying the compromise decree - not amounts to wilful disobedience of court order and not amount to contempt of court =

The petitioners have alleged that respondent  No.3
             Ashiq Ali was a respondent in the  civil  appeal  before  this
             Court, admitting the title of  the  petitioners  to  the  suit
             property.  
But respondent No.1  Patwari  and  Respondent  No.2
             Tahsildar have recorded the name  of  respondent  No.3  namely
             Ashiq Ali  in Khasra No.1276/1 in the year  2011  defying  the
             decree of this Court. =           

The legal  representative  Nos.  2(i)  to
             2(iv)   of deceased original respondent No.2  Maseet  Ali  did
             not appear in the civil appeal though served and they did  not
             enter  into  compromise  with  the  petitioners.   
This  Court
             disposed of the civil  appeal  declaring  the  rights  of  the
             petitioners vis-à-vis and the legal heirs of  deceased  –Nabbu
             Khan on the terms of compromise petition.

          6. In such circumstances, there is no willful disobedience on the
             part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners.




          7. The   Contempt  Petition  is,   therefore,   closed.   However
             liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the  appropriate
             remedy available in law.
  

2014( February part) judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41197
T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN
                                              Non-reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.119 OF 2013
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.8572 OF 2003



     Nafis Ahmad & Another        ...  Petitioners

                                   versus

     Narain Singh & Others         ...           Respondents







                               J U D G M E N T

     C. NAGAPPAN, J.

          1. The petitioners have sought for punishing the respondents  for
             willful disobeying  the judgment and decree  dated  10.12.2007
             of this Court  in Civil Appeal No.8527 of 2003.

          2. The  case  of  the  petitioners  is  that  they  were  put  in
             possession of the suit property pursuant to  an  agreement  of
             sale with the  owners on 3.5.1950  and  they  filed  suit  for
             declaration  of  their  title  and  permanent  injunction   on
             12.7.1996 and the suit  was  decreed  but  on  appeal  it  was
             reversed by the Appellate Court and the High  Court  confirmed
             the same  in  second  appeal  and  the  petitioners  preferred
             further appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No.8572 of  2003,
             and during the pendency of the appeal the matter  was  settled
             and a Compromise  Petition under Order  23  Rule  3   CPC  was
             filed and this Court disposed of the civil appeal on the terms
             enumerated in  the  compromise  petition,  by  judgment  dated
             10.12.2007 and the  petitioners  thus  became  owners  of  the
             property.   The petitioners have alleged that respondent  No.3
             Ashiq Ali was a respondent in the  civil  appeal  before  this
             Court, admitting the title of  the  petitioners  to  the  suit
             property.  But respondent No.1  Patwari  and  Respondent  No.2
             Tahsildar have recorded the name  of  respondent  No.3  namely
             Ashiq Ali  in Khasra No.1276/1 in the year  2011  defying  the
             decree of this Court.




          3. Respondent No. 3 though served has not chosen to appear either
             through counsel or in  person  in  this  petition.  Heard  the
             learned counsel for the parties.

          4. It is true that a compromise petition under Order  23  Rule  3
             CPC came to be filed in Civil Appeal No.8572 of 2003 and  this
             Court disposed of the appeal on the terms enumerated   in  the
             compromise petition.  The terms of the compromise petition are
             relevant and are extracted below:




              “The Petitioners have compromised with  the  legal  heirs  of
              deceased-Nabbu Khan at Rs.1,45,051/- (Rupees one  lakh  forty
              five thousand fifty one only) and the said legal  heirs    of
              deceased-Nabbu Khan  received  this  money.   Therefore  from
              today onwards the legal heirs of the said  Nabbu  Khan  shall
              have no concern with the  lands  in  dispute  bearing  Survey
              Nos.1276/1  measuring 19 bighas; 1276/2 measuring  12  bighas
              and  1279  measuring  11  bighas  and  19  biswas,  the   new
              Settlement numbers whereof are 1166 measuring 2-46 Hect; 1170
              measuring 1-96 Hect i.e. total area 4-42  Hect.,   government
              cess Rs.70.32.  The   petitioners  have  been  in  continuous
              possession of the aforesaid lands since the  times  of  their
              father.  Petitioners-Mushtaq Ahmad etc.,  shall  continue  to
              remain owners and occupiers of the aforesaid lands. …….   We,
              the defendants/respondents and  legal  heirs  of  Nabbu  Khan
              shall not raise any objection whatsoever in  future  in  this
              regard.”




          5. It reveals that  the petitioners  herein have compromised with
             the legal heirs of  deceased-Nabbu  Khan  with  the  lands  in
             dispute and they admitted ownership  of  the  petitioners  and
             undertook not to raise any  objection  in  future.  Respondent
             No.3 Ashiq Ali is the legal heir of original  Respondent  No.2
             in the Civil Appeal namely Maseet Ali and he was impleaded  as
             such in the appeal.  The legal  representative  Nos.  2(i)  to
             2(iv)   of deceased original respondent No.2  Maseet  Ali  did
             not appear in the civil appeal though served and they did  not
             enter  into  compromise  with  the  petitioners.   This  Court
             disposed of the civil  appeal  declaring  the  rights  of  the
             petitioners vis-à-vis and the legal heirs of  deceased  –Nabbu
             Khan on the terms of compromise petition.

          6. In such circumstances, there is no willful disobedience on the
             part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners.




          7. The   Contempt  Petition  is,   therefore,   closed.   However
             liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the  appropriate
             remedy available in law.

                                                              …………………………….J.
                                             (T.S. Thakur)






                                                               ……………………………J.
                                             (C. Nagappan)
     New Delhi;
     February 04, 2014


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.