//
you're reading...
legal issues

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

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,763,154 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,855 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com