Asma Lateef Vs. Shabbir Ahmad

CITATION	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9695 OF 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	January 12, 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	ASMA LATEEF & ANR.
RESPONDENT	SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS..
BENCH	DIPANKAR DATTA, J..

INTRODUCTION

Asma Lateef Vs. Shabbir Ahmad revolves around a dispute over property ownership and legal proceedings stemming from conflicting claims. The appellants assert their ownership based on an alleged oral gift, while the respondents challenge this claim through legal actions under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Amidst these legal battles, issues regarding jurisdiction, procedural irregularities, and the validity of court orders come to the forefront. The subsequent transfer of the property to third-party purchasers further complicates the matter, leading to contempt petitions and objections against the execution of decrees. The High Court’s judgment addresses these complex legal issues, emphasizing the importance of due process, jurisdictional integrity, and procedural fairness. This introduction sets the stage for a comprehensive analysis of the case, highlighting the key points of contention and the legal principles at play.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants claim ownership of a property, which they assert was orally gifted to them by their great-grandmother, Khatoon Jannat Bibi. They possess a memorandum documenting this gift.
2. A civil suit was filed by the appellants, represented by their power of attorney holder, under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit aimed to prevent interference with their peaceful possession of the property. The defendants in this suit were Asad Ullah Kazmi, Samiullah (son of Kazmi), and a caretaker named Ram Chandra Yadav.
3. Asad Ullah Kazmi initiated legal proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, seeking a declaration of rights regarding the property. These proceedings were ultimately dismissed.
4. During the legal proceedings, the trial court issued an interim injunction, directing Kazmi and Samiullah to maintain the status quo and refrain from interfering with the appellants’ peaceful possession of the property.
5. Following Kazmi’s demise, his sons, Samiullah and Fariduddin, transferred the property to third-party purchasers through a sale deed.
6. The appellants subsequently filed a contempt petition against the purchasers, alleging violation of court orders and seeking the invalidation of the sale deed.
7. Additionally, the appellants filed a separate contempt petition against the respondents, accusing them of contempt of court orders.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the subsequent purchasers of the suit property had the right to maintain an objection under section 47, CPC against execution of the decree?
2. Whether the order dated 5th August, 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah alone, is without jurisdiction and a nullity?
3. Whether the sale deed dated 23rd November, 1997, made by Samiullah in favor of the Purchasers was null and void?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by questioning the validity of the order dated 5th August, 1991, and the subsequent decree based on it, asserting that they were not executable. b. Samiullah had ample opportunity to file a written statement but failed to do so. Moreover, the order dated 5th August, 1991, was not challenged and had attained finality. 
2. The Trial Court, through an interim order dated 31st May, 1990, directed Kazmi and Samiullah to maintain status quo and not interfere with the appellants’ peaceful possession of the suit property. The High Court erroneously held that this order did not restrict the parties from alienating the property, deeming the sale deed dated 3rd November, 1997, as valid. 
3. The Purchasers were purchaser’s pendente lite and should not have bought the property without the Trial Court’s permission. Reference was made to legal precedents to support the argument that property transfers during pending proceedings and in violation of interim injunctions were impermissible. 
4. The Purchasers forcibly dispossessed the appellants of the suit property on 10th October, 2004, in violation of an injunction order dated 16th January, 1998, issued by the Executing Court. 
5. The reliance placed by the High Court on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan was misplaced, as it dealt with appellate proceedings challenging a decree, unlike the present case where the decree’s execution was contested in execution proceedings.

.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The order dated 5th August, 1991, passed by the Trial Court, did not meet the criteria of a judgment as per the Civil Procedure Code. The principle laid down in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan was rightly applied by the High Court.

2. The High Court appropriately granted all parties the liberty to adjudicate the title to the suit property through the appropriate forum, ensuring no prejudice to the appellants. Any issues regarding title and the validity of the sale deed could be resolved through the appropriate legal process. 

3. At the time of purchase, the names of Kazmi’s sons were already present in the land revenue records for the suit property, and the Purchasers’ names were subsequently inserted through mutation.

4. Legal precedents such as Hukam Chand v. Om Chand and Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao support the argument that the property transfer was not in violation of the Transfer of Property Act, as it did not impose an absolute embargo on such transfers pendente lite.

JUDGEMENT

1. The High Court answered the first and second issues in the affirmative, meaning that the subsequent purchasers had the right to maintain an objection against the execution of the decree, and the order decreeing the suit against Samiullah alone was deemed to be beyond jurisdiction and a nullity.

2. The High Court answered the third issue in the negative, stating that the sale deed made by Samiullah in favor of the Purchasers was not null and void.

3. The High Court set aside the revisional order dated 21st February, 2009, and allowed the writ petition. It granted the parties the liberty to take recourse to available legal remedies to have determination of the title to the suit property adjudicated.

4. Salient observations made by the High Court include: 

• The order dated 5th August 1991 only restrained defendant no.2 from interfering with the appellants’ rights to the suit property, not restricting Kazmi’s sons from dealing with or transferring it. 
• The transfer of the suit property did not violate section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, allowing the Purchasers to object to the appellants’ execution application. 
• To succeed in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the plaintiff must establish title or proprietary rights over the suit property, which the Trial Court did not find in this case. 
• The Trial Court had the option not to pronounce judgment on the facts or pass judgment only when deemed prudent, and it had no authority to decree the suit against one defendant without adjudicating the controversy involved. 
• The order dated 5th August, 1991, did not meet the basic requirements of a judgment and decree as per the Civil Procedure Code.

ANALYSIS

1. Court points out that Kazmi’s objections regarding the suit’s maintainability and jurisdiction, the trial court proceeded to issue a judgment against Samiullah alone. This raises concerns about due process and fairness in the trial proceedings
2. The court emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion and careful consideration when invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII of the CPC. This rule allows for judgment against a defendant who fails to file a written statement. 

3. The court discusses the limited scope of objections under Section 47 of the CPC regarding the execution of a decree. It emphasizes that only decrees that are nullities, not merely erroneous, can be objected to in execution proceedings

4. The court extensively discusses the concept of jurisdiction and its importance in legal proceedings. It emphasizes that a court must have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit and grant the relief sought. The distinction between jurisdictional errors and errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction is emphasized, with the former rendering a decision void.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case underscores the importance of procedural fairness, judicial discretion, and jurisdictional integrity in legal proceedings. The court’s analysis highlights the need for due process, careful consideration of Rule 10 of Order VIII of the CPC, precision in raising objections under Section 47, and the significance of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. By addressing these key principles, the court ensures equitable outcomes and upholds the integrity of the legal system.

REFERENCES

• chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/11820/11820_2011_2_1501_49380_Judgement_12-Jan-2024.pdf
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15033743/
• https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/11820/11820_2011_2_1501_49380_Judgement_12-Jan-2024.pdf

This Article is written by Ritika Gupta student of Asian Law College, Noida (ALC); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.