REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS. versus AKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 22-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 694 : 2024 INSC 329
Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. 
v. 
Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2024)
22 April 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High 
Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent 
no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and 
holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit was 
inexecutable and a nullity.
Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 – Questions to be 
determined by the Court executing decree – Objections u/s. 47 
– Property originally owned by defendant No.1 – Execution of 
agreement to sell the property by the brother of defendant No.1-
defendant No.2 and also the power of attorney of defendant 
No.1, for himself and for the principal defendant No.1 with the 
plaintiff – Pursuant thereto, the vendor not executing the sale 
deed – Suit for specific performance by the plaintiff against 
defendant no.1 and no.2 – During pendency, the parties entered 
into a compromise and the suit was decreed – Execution 
petition by the plaintiff – Objections by the defendant no. 1 – 
Objections dismissed and in the meantime the defendant no. 1 
died – Thereafter, order dismissing the objections challenged 
by the son of defendant no. 2, and legal heir of defendant No. 
1 claiming rights under a sale executed by defendant no 1, 
which was dismissed – Special Leave Petition thereagainst also 
dismissed – However, new round of objections u/s. 47 initiated 
by respondent no. 1-wife of defendant no. 2 – Dismissed by 
the executing court – In revision petition, the High Court set 
aside the order passed by the Executing Court and held that 
the decree passed by the trial court was inexecutable and a 
nullity – Correctness:
Held: High Court erred in setting aside the Executing Court’s 
order and in declaring the trial court’s decree void – High Court’s 
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
695
Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. Lrs.
reasoning rests on the erroneous assumption that the property 
was jointly owned by defendants No. 1 and No. 2, and that the 
absence of defendant No. 2’s signature on the compromise 
invalidated the decree – However, defendant No. 2 consistently 
acknowledged that he had no ownership rights over the property – 
Compromise, signed by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff and later 
verified by defendant No. 2 through an application, substantiates 
that defendant No. 1 was the sole owner – These facts were 
upheld by the High Court and this Court in previous proceedings 
– Defendant no. 2 had limited rights of being in possession of the 
third floor of suit property – Due to the said reasons, the plaintiff 
and defendant no. 1 were the only necessary parties needed 
for the compromise – High Court also incorrectly held that the 
provisions of Ord. XXIII, r. 3 were not adhered to, whereas the trial 
court correctly recorded and verified the compromise, fulfilling the 
requirements of Ord. XXIII, r. 3 – Recording of the compromise and 
the consequent decree, although appearing procedurally delayed, 
adhered to the process required under CPC – Furthermore, the 
High Court overlooked the fact that legal heir of defendant No 
2, had previously objected to the execution proceedings, which 
was dismissed – Subsequent appeals before the High Court, 
including a Special Leave Petition were also dismissed – Thus, 
similar objections by respondent No. 1, in her capacity as one 
of the legal heirs of defendant No. 2 would not be maintainable 
and would amount to abuse of process of law – Executing Court 
rightly rejected the objections u/s. 47 filed by the respondent no. 
1 – Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that 
of the executing court is restored – Ord. XXIII, r. 3.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Objections; Execution of agreement to sell; Sale deed; Suit for 
specific performance; Compromise.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2014 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRP No. 95 of 2007
696
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
Anuj Bhandari, Gaurav Jain, Rajat Gupta, Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Mrs. 
Anjali Doshi, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.