A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the executability of a decree issued pursuant to a compromise in a suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court adjudicated the correctness of the High Court’s judgment, which had set aside an order of the Executing Court rejecting objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court had ruled the trial court’s decree to be a nullity. The Supreme Court reinstated the Executing Court’s findings, emphasizing procedural adherence under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. It clarified the ownership of the disputed property and dismissed the objections by the respondent, terming them abusive of legal processes.

Keywords: Executing Court, Specific Performance, Section 47 CPC, Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, Decree Nullity.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. Lrs.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2024
• iii) Judgment Date: 22 April 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
• vi) Author: Justice Vikram Nath
• vii) Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694 : 2024 INSC 329
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 47 CPC, Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, Section 115 CPC.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated 21 March 2014 in SBCRP No. 95 of 2007.
• x) Related Law Subjects: Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Property Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stemmed from disputes over the execution of a decree issued in a specific performance suit involving property in Jaipur. Following a compromise between parties, the decree was challenged by legal heirs and subsequent objectors under Section 47 CPC. The trial court and executing court upheld the compromise decree, dismissing objections. However, the High Court later ruled the decree as inexecutable, citing procedural flaws and alleged joint ownership. The Supreme Court’s intervention clarified ownership, procedural adherence, and limitations on repetitive objections.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Ownership and Agreement: The property originally belonged to Defendant No. 1 (Ghulam Mohiuddin). An agreement to sell was executed in 1967 by Defendant No. 2 (Saeeduddin), acting as a power of attorney holder for Defendant No. 1.

2. Litigation and Compromise: Following non-performance of the agreement, Plaintiff (Rehan Ahmed) initiated a specific performance suit in 1972. A compromise was reached in 1978 between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, recognizing Defendant No. 1 as the sole owner.

3. Decree Issuance: The compromise decree stipulated registration of the sale deed by Defendant No. 1. Delays ensued due to procedural reasons, culminating in the decree’s confirmation in 1979.

4. Execution Proceedings: Plaintiff initiated execution when Defendant No. 1 failed to comply. Objections were raised by Defendant No. 1, later dismissed by the Executing Court.

5. Recurrent Objections: After Defendant No. 1’s death, legal heirs, including General Tariq and Akhtar Un Nisa, filed repetitive objections under Section 47 CPC, alleging decree nullity and joint ownership.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the decree dated 09.05.1979 was a nullity due to alleged joint ownership.
2. Whether procedural requirements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC were fulfilled.
3. Whether repetitive objections under Section 47 CPC constituted abuse of process.
4. Whether the compromise decree was executable despite delays.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Ownership Rights: Defendant No. 2 explicitly disclaimed ownership, recognizing Defendant No. 1 as the sole owner.
• Validity of Compromise: The compromise adhered to procedural mandates under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, including verification by the trial court.
• Bar on Repetitive Objections: Previous objections by legal heirs were dismissed, precluding fresh challenges by Akhtar Un Nisa.
• Execution Delay Justified: Delays were attributed to Defendant No. 1’s non-compliance, not Plaintiff’s fault.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Decree Nullity: The decree was void as it addressed joint property, requiring signatures from both Defendants No. 1 and 2.
• Non-Adherence to Procedure: Verification delays and absence of Defendant No. 2 invalidated the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
• Possessory Rights: Defendant No. 2 retained possession of parts of the property, complicating execution.
• Fresh Objections Permissible: Legal heirs had independent rights to raise objections regarding property ownership and possession.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

• The property was solely owned by Defendant No. 1, as confirmed through written statements, family arrangements, and previous judgments.
• Procedural delays in compromise verification did not nullify compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
• Repetitive objections under Section 47 CPC were barred as abuse of process.

b) Obiter Dicta

• Courts must discourage frivolous and repetitive objections that delay execution of valid decrees.
• Verification of compromises should not be unduly delayed to avoid such challenges.

c) Guidelines

1. Ownership disputes resolved in initial proceedings cannot be reopened through execution objections.
2. Procedural adherence under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is sufficient if key requirements are met.
3. Successive legal heirs or objectors cannot perpetuate litigation based on identical grounds.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the sanctity of valid decrees and barred repetitive objections to prevent misuse of procedural provisions. It clarified procedural compliance under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and the implications of ownership declarations during litigation. This judgment serves as a precedent in addressing execution delays caused by vexatious objections.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. Lrs., [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694.
2. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12463 of 2006, Supreme Court of India.
3. Rajasthan High Court Order in SBCRP No. 95 of 2007.

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 47, Order XXIII Rule 3, Section 115.