Whether in mediations [ lokadalat etc., ] other than the subject matter of the suit can be added and the award/decree to that effect is valid and excutable ? yes Now so far as the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram that as the disputed properties in question were not the subject matter of original suit proceedings and therefore the same could not have been the subject matter of Settlement Agreement entered into between the Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and/or the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that being the dispute between father and daughter the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore an amicable settlement between the parties. Both the parties agreed to settle all the disputes between the parties in the Mediation. In the Mediation it is always open for the parties to explore the possibility of an overall amicable settlement including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. That is the benefit of the Mediation. In the Mediation parties may try for amicable settlement, which is reduced into writing and/or a Settlement Agreement and thereafter it becomes the part of the Court’s Order and the Court disposes of the matter in terms of the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter the order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable irrespective of the fact whether the Settlement Agreement is with respect to the properties which was/were not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. Thereafter the order passed by the Court in terms of the Settlement is binding to the parties and is required to be acted upon and/or complied with and as observed above the same is executable. Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram and Rampal that as the properties in question were not the subject matter of the suit before the Trial, the same could have been the subject matter of the Settlement Agreement and/or the order dated 05.05.2017 cannot be accepted. The order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is required to be complied with and the same is executable. Under the circumstances the Executing Court has to execute the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 in its true spirit. In view of the reasons stated above, M.A. No.2485 of 2018 stands dismissed. I.A. No.30045 of 2019 is hereby allowed. In exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to see that the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is fully complied with, we direct all the concerned persons claiming to be in possession of the disputed properties in questions including Plot Nos. 29 and 29A of the Jodha House to handover the peaceful and vacant possession to Jodha Ram as per the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016, within a period of four weeks from today. Executing Court is hereby directed to see that the present order passed by this Court and its earlier order dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 is fully complied with. Both the parties Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram ­ parties to the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 are hereby directed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 fully and in its true spirit.

1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL CONTEMPT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2018
WITH
I.A. NO.30045 OF 2019
WITH
M.A. NO.2485 OF 2018
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10022 OF 2016
KAUSHALIYA …Petitioner (s)
Versus
JODHA RAM & ORS. … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Present petition has been filed for non­compliance of the
order dated 05.05.2017 passed in this Court in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.10022 of 2016.
2

  1. Litigation started between the father and daughter namely
    Jodha Ram and Kaushaliya. Smt. Kaushaliya filed a suit for
    injunction against her father Jodha Ram with respect to some of
    the properties. Jodha Ram – father filed a counter claim. Smt.
    Kaushaliya lost before the Learned Trial Court. However, the
    counter claim came to be allowed. The matter was ultimately
    reached to this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C)
    No.10022 of 2016. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court
    dated 24.10.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation
    Centre, Supreme Court to explore the possibility of amicable
    settlement between the parties. Both the parties entered into a
    settlement agreement dated 10.02.2017. As per the settlement
    both the parties agreed as under:
    “1. It is agreed between the parties that Respondent
    No.1 (Shri Jodha Ram) i.e. Father of the Petitioner
    shall purchase another plot bearing No.55, Hudco
    Scheme, D­Circle, Kirti Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan,
    admeasuring (30 X 13) 390 Sq.Ft., and get it
    registered in the name of the Petitioner Ms.
    Kaushaliya within four weeks from the final
    settlement/consent order of this Hon’ble Court.
  2. It is also agreed the parties that the entire sum
    for the registry, stamp duty, mutation etc. would be
    borne by the Respondent No.1 Mr. Jodha Ram.
    3
  3. It is agreed between the parties that in view of the
    Respondent No.1 buying the property as mentioned
    in clause – 1 and 2 of this settlement agreement, the
    petitioner shall handover complete, vacant and
    peaceful possession of the disputed properties (as
    shown in site map annexed by Petitioner in original
    Civil Suit No.29 of 2010 filed before Additional Civil
    Judge, Junior Division, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) bearing
    Plot No.29D, land adjoining 29D (four parts) and
    land adjoining 29D (two parts) forming part of Meera
    Bhawan, Ship House, First Polo, Pawta, Jodhpur,
    Rajasthan and undisputed properties bearing Plot
    Nos. 29, 29A, forming part of Jodha Bhawan, Ship
    House, First Polo, Pawta, Jodhpur, Rajasthan to the
    Respondent No.1.
  4. It is agreed between the parties that complete,
    vacant and peaceful possession of the properties
    mentioned in clause no.2 of this settlement
    agreement shall be handed over by the petitioner to
    the respondent no.1 simultaneously on respondent
    no.1 handling over registry and sale documents of
    property mentioned in clause – 1 of this settlement
    agreement in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
    undertakes not to create any third party right in any
    manner in respect of the said property till the final
    settlement.
  5. It is agreed between the parties that all
    necessary steps shall be taken by each party within
    eight weeks to withdraw all pending litigations
    between the parties shall be withdrawn by each
    within four weeks from the final settlement/consent
    order of this Hon’ble Court.
  6. It is agreed between the parties that the petition
    pending before the sessions court Jodhpur,
    Rajasthan titled Kailash Vs. Jodha Ram, Kaushaliya
    and Ors. bearing case no.9 of 2011 will also be
    settled between the parties. Aforesaid petition is
    4
    with regard to ten LIC bonds of Rs.50,000/­ each
    bearing Nos.104200480, 104200481, 104200482,
    104200483, 104200484, 104200485, 104200486,
    104200487, 104200491 and 104200501, date of
    proposal of all bonds being 19.03.2007 and date of
    commencement of being 20.03.2007 for a term of ten
    years, totaling Rs.5 Lakh, the proceeds of which
    shall be shared in equal proportion between the
    petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein Shri Kailash
    by way of two separate cheques of equal amounts to
    be received by petitioner and Respondent No.2 from
    LIC.
  7. By signing this agreement, the parties hereto
    solemnly state and affirm that they have no further
    claims or demands against each other in respect of
    the property measuring on all the disputes and
    differences between the parties relating to the
    subject matter of the suit have been amicably settled
    by the parties hereto through the process of
    mediation.
  8. The parties undertake to abide by the terms and
    condition set out in the above­mentioned Agreement,
    which have been arrived without any coercion,
    duress or collusion and undertake not to raise any
    dispute whatsoever henceforth.
  9. This Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 disposed of the
    aforesaid Special Leave Petition in terms of the Settlement
    Agreement dated 10.02.2017. This Court directed that both the
    parties shall abide by the settlement. This Court also further
    directed the petitioner – Kaushaliya to vacate the premises within
    5
    10 days and simultaneously she would be provided further
    accommodation which has been agreed to by the respondent. The
    petitioner ­ Kaushaliya handed over some portion of the premises.
    However, did not hand over all the properties/entire properties
    which she was required to hand over as per the Settlement
    Agreement and the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the
    respondent – father did not hand over the possession of the
    premises which he was required to hand over by the petitioner –
    Kaushaliya. Execution proceedings were initiated in which
    Kaushaliya and two persons namely Ramu Ram Vishnoi and
    Rampal Bishnoi applicants in M.A. No.2485 of 2018 also
    submitted their objections claiming to be in possession of some of
    the properties namely Plot Nos.29 and 29A forming part of Jodha
    Bhawan, Ship House (hereinafter referred to as disputed
    premises). As the respondent did not hand over the properties to
    the petitioner – Kaushaliya, which she was required to hand over
    as per the order passed by this Court she has preferred the
    present Contempt Petition No.1868 of 2018 alleging noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.10022
    6
    of 2016 by the respondent father – Jodha Ram. In the Contempt
    Petition, Jodha Ram and others have filed I.A. No.30045 of 2019
    for an appropriate order directing the Executing Court to hand
    over the vacant and peaceful possession of entire Meera Bhawan
    and Jodha Bhawan in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated
    10.02.2017 and the orders dated 05.05.2017 and 11.12.2018
    passed in present proceedings. Order passed by this Court dated
    11.12.2018 is as under:
    “After hearing learned counsel for the parties at
    length and, particularly, after perusing the order
    dated 13.09.2017 of the Executing Court, we
    adjourn these matters by four months.
    We may record that in the Settlement
    Agreement, which was arrived at between the
    petitioner and her father, it was agreed by the
    petitioner that she would handover vacant
    possession of Jodha Bhawan and Meera Bhawan to
    her father. Now she has come up with the plea that
    only a portion of the said house was in her
    possession which she has vacated and other
    portions are in possession of third parties. It is in
    respect thereof that execution proceedings are
    pending.
    We also find from the records that insofar as
    Respondent No.1/father of the petitioner is
    concerned, he has purchased one house which is to
    the liking of the petitioner herself and to show his
    bona fide, he has deposited the keys thereof as well
    with the Executing Court. His only plea is that the
    7
    possession thereof should be handed over to the
    petitioner after he gets possession of Jodha Bhawan
    and Meera Bhawan.
    In the circumstances, we impress upon the
    Executing Court to expedite the execution
    proceedings.”
  10. Thereafter applicants Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal
    Bishnoi have preferred M.A. No.2485 of 2018 alleging inter alia
    that they are in possession of the properties bearing No.29 and
    29A forming part of the Jodha Bhawan and they have purchased
    the said properties vide an Agreement to Sell dated 06.12.2016 for
    a consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. Therefore, it is the case on behalf
    of two applicants that as they are the owners of the disputed
    properties and they are in possession of the said properties, the
    settlement entered into between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and
    his son are not binding to them as it affects their rights.
  11. Ms. Bhati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
    daughter has vehemently submitted that she is required to be
    handed over the possession of the properties mentioned in the
    agreement which the respondent Jodha Ram is required to hand
    over. It is submitted that she has already vacated that part of the
    8
    premises which she was required to hand over to the extent she
    was in possession. It is submitted that therefore she has fulfilled
    her part of commitment as per the settlement agreement.
  12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Jodha Ram has
    vehemently submitted that as such applicants of M.A. No.2485 of
    2018 have no right title in the disputed properties in Jodha House.
    It is submitted that they have no locus whatsoever in the present
    proceedings as well as before the Executing Court. It is submitted
    that those applicants claim to be in possession and title on the
    basis of the Agreement to Sell. It is submitted that Agreement to
    Sell does not confer any right title or interest. It is submitted that
    till date those two applicants have never filed any suit claiming
    title/ownership. It is submitted that the suit for permanent
    injunction was filed in which the learned Trial Court has refused
    to grant any interim injunction in their favour. It is submitted that
    at the relevant time applicant No.1 Ramu Ram Vishnoi paid only
    Rs.51,000/­ in the year 2006, however, he did not make any
    further payment and therefore the Agreement to Sell was cancelled
    by serving a legal notice in the year 2007 itself. It is further
    9
    submitted that even the applicant Ramu Ram, though had no
    title/ownership transferred the said property on the strength of the
    Agreement to Sell to one Kishan Gopal Singh on 08.09.2013. It is
    submitted that Ramu Ram in the said agreement claimed that he
    purchased the suit property from Jodha Ram and sale deed was
    executed between them. It is submitted that therefore the
    applicants Ramu Ram and Rampal are claiming to be the owners
    and in possession pursuant to Agreement to Sell only. It is
    submitted that even the applicants Ramu Ram filed the Objection
    Petition/Objections Proceedings before the Executing Court along
    with Kaushaliya which came to be dismissed. It is submitted that
    both Kaushaliya and Ramu Ram are acting in collusion. It is
    requested to dismiss the application preferred by Ramu Ram
    Vishnoi and Rampal and also the contempt petition initiated by
    Kaushaliya. It is requested to direct the Executing Court to hand
    over the possession of the entire properties, which Jodha Ram is
    entitled pursuant to order passed by this Court and as per the
    Settlement dated 10.02.2017.
    10
  13. Learned Counsel appearing for Ramu Ram Vishnoi and
    Rampal Bishnoi has submitted that they are the owners of the
    premise Nos. 29 and 29A forming part of Jodha Bhawan, Ship
    House pursuant to the Agreement to Sell for a sale consideration of
    Rs.22 lakhs. It is submitted that as they are in possession of the
    said premises/properties and neither Kaushaliya nor Jodha Ram
    and his son have any right title. It is submitted that in any case,
    the aforesaid properties cannot be said to be undisputed
    properties. It is submitted that therefore in the Settlement dated
    10.02.2017 it is stated that the properties in Jodha Bhawan is
    undisputed property of Jodha Ram the same is not correct. It is
    submitted that in any case when they are in possession of the
    disputed properties settlement between Kaushaliya and Jodha
    Ram before this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10022 of
    2016 and the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 is not
    binding to them.
    7.1 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on
    behalf of the aforesaid Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal that even
    otherwise the dispute between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram which
    11
    went upto this Court by way of SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 was not
    with respect to the disputed properties, more particularly, Plot
    Nos.29 & 29A. It is submitted that therefore as the disputed
    properties in question were not the subject matter of the original
    suit, the disputed properties could not have been the subject
    matter of the order dated 05.05.2017 and/or Settlement between
    Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram. For the above, Learned Counsel has
    relied upon the map attached with the plaint.
    7.2 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow M.A.
    No.2485 of 2018 and recall the final order dated 05.05.2017
    passed in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 to the extend with respect to
    Plot No.29 and 29A of the Jodha House.
  14. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties
    respectively at length.
  15. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute was
    between Kaushaliya – daughter and Jodha Ram – father; That
    matter ultimately reached to this Court by way of SLP (C)
    No.10022 of 2016. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court
    12
    Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of amicable settlement
    between the parties. In the Mediation, the parties to the SLP
    namely Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram entered into a Settlement
    Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and resolved the entire dispute
    between the parties over and above the dispute before the Trial
    Court. This Court disposed of the SLP in terms of the Settlement
    Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and directed both the parties to abide
    by the terms of the Settlement produced above.
  16. It is the case on behalf of Kaushaliya that she has been
    ousted from the premises that was in her possession on
    30.03.2018, however, she has not been given the other
    accommodation which was agreed to be given simultaneously by
    Jodha Ram. However, on the other hand, it is the case on behalf
    of Jodha Ram that Kaushaliya has not vacated the entire premises
    and he has not been handed over the possession or occupation of
    entire Jodha House more particularly Plot No.29 and 29A of the
    Jodha House which he is entitled to under the Settlement
    Agreement dated 10.02.2017. Applicants of M.A. No.2485 of 2018
    claimed to be in possession of the aforesaid Plots Nos.29 and 29A
    13
    on the basis of the Agreement to Sell executed by Jodha Ram and
    they claim to be the owners and they are objecting to the order
    dated 05.05.2017 passed in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016. However,
    it is requested to be noted that Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal
    Bhisnoi claim to be the owners and in possession pursuant to
    Agreement to Sell dated 10.02.2017. As per the settled preposition
    of law, Agreement to Sell does not confer any right, title or interest
    in the property. Therefore, as such on the basis of the Agreement
    to Sell, only Ramu Ram and Rampal cannot claim any ownership
    and/or right title or interest in the disputed properties. Apart from
    that even the Trial Court in the suit for permanent injunction filed
    by them has refused to grant injunction in their favour.
  17. At this stage, it is required to be noted that except filing the
    suit for permanent injunction, Ramu Ram and Rampal, who claim
    to be the Agreement to Sell in their favour, has never filed any suit
    for specific performance of the alleged Agreement to Sell. It also
    appears that even the objection raised by them and Kaushaliya
    filed before the Executing Court have been rejected by the
    Executing Court. Under the circumstances, the applicants of M.A.
    14
    No.2485 of 2018 cannot claim any ownership and/or the right title
    or interest in the disputed properties and therefore they have no
    locus to object to the Settlement Agreement between Kaushaliya
    and Jodha Ram and the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by this
    Court in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016. Under the circumstances, the
    M.A. No.2485 of 2016 deserves to be dismissed, however, without
    prejudice to their rights, if any, to be established in a Competent
    Court of law.
  18. Now so far as the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram that as
    the disputed properties in question were not the subject matter of
    original suit proceedings and therefore the same could not have
    been the subject matter of Settlement Agreement entered into
    between the Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and/or the order passed
    by this Court dated 05.05.2017 is concerned, at the outset, it is
    required to be noted that being the dispute between father and
    daughter the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation
    Centre to explore an amicable settlement between the parties.
    Both the parties agreed to settle all the disputes between the
    parties in the Mediation. In the Mediation it is always open for the
    15
    parties to explore the possibility of an overall amicable settlement
    including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the
    proceedings before the Court. That is the benefit of the Mediation.
    In the Mediation parties may try for amicable settlement, which is
    reduced into writing and/or a Settlement Agreement and thereafter
    it becomes the part of the Court’s Order and the Court disposes of
    the matter in terms of the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter the
    order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable
    irrespective of the fact whether the Settlement Agreement is with
    respect to the properties which was/were not the subject matter of
    the proceedings before the Court. Thereafter the order passed by
    the Court in terms of the Settlement is binding to the parties and
    is required to be acted upon and/or complied with and as observed
    above the same is executable. Under the circumstances, the
    submission on behalf of Ramu Ram and Rampal that as the
    properties in question were not the subject matter of the suit
    before the Trial, the same could have been the subject matter of
    the Settlement Agreement and/or the order dated 05.05.2017
    cannot be accepted. The order passed by this Court dated
    16
    05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is required to be complied
    with and the same is executable. Under the circumstances the
    Executing Court has to execute the order passed by this Court
    dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 in its true spirit.
  19. In view of the reasons stated above, M.A. No.2485 of 2018
    stands dismissed. I.A. No.30045 of 2019 is hereby allowed. In
    exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution
    of India and to see that the order passed by this Court dated
    05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is fully complied with, we
    direct all the concerned persons claiming to be in possession of the
    disputed properties in questions including Plot Nos. 29 and 29A of
    the Jodha House to handover the peaceful and vacant possession
    to Jodha Ram as per the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017
    in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016, within a period of four weeks from
    today. Executing Court is hereby directed to see that the
    present order passed by this Court and its earlier order dated
    05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 is fully complied with. Both the
    parties Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram ­ parties to the Settlement
    Agreement dated 10.02.2017 are hereby directed to comply with
    17
    the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement dated
    10.02.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in
    SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 fully and in its true spirit.
    Consequently, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of at this
    stage.
    ……………………………………J.
    (ASHOK BHUSHAN)
    ……………………………………J.
    (M. R. SHAH)
    New Delhi;
    November 25, 2019