This was a civil appeal case from 2014, involving a property dispute. The appellants (Rehan Ahmed’s legal heirs) and the respondents (Akhtar Un Nisa’s legal heirs) were involved in a long-standing dispute regarding the execution of a property sale agreement dated October 4, 1967. The property, identified by Municipal Nos. 52-57 in Jaipur, was subject to a suit for specific performance after the original vendor failed to execute a sale deed. This resulted in a compromise agreement between the parties, which was subsequently contested in various legal challenges.
The main issue revolved around the execution of the trial court’s decree from May 9, 1979, which followed the compromise. The respondents objected, claiming the decree was invalid as it was improperly verified and that the property was jointly owned, necessitating consent from both defendants mentioned in the original suit.
The Supreme Court judgment addressed several points:
- Verification of the compromise was delayed due to procedural issues but was eventually accepted and signed by the necessary parties.
- The ownership of the property was solely with Defendant No. 1 (Ghulam Mohiuddin), as confirmed by previous court findings and admissions by Defendant No. 2 during the litigation.
- The execution of the decree was contingent upon certain conditions, such as obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and ensuring that the property was vacated by Defendant No. 2, which were not met by the respondent.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its decision to void the trial court’s decree and upheld the original execution order, dismissing the objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by Akhtar Un Nisa. The appeal was allowed, and the original order from the executing court was restored, rejecting further objections from the respondent.