Page 1

1

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.

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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.

Page 6

6

…………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; February 04, 2014