Four-Decade Property Battle Ends as Supreme Court Rules for Buyer.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India settled a long-running property dispute between Rehan Ahmed (buyer) and the legal heirs of the seller, Ghulam Mohiuddin. The case involved a complex web of claims and objections, but ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the buyer.
Background:
The case began in 1967 when Rehan Ahmed entered into an agreement to purchase a property from Saeeduddin, who was acting as a power of attorney for his brother, Ghulam Mohiuddin, the owner. However, disagreements arose, and the sale deed was never executed.
To resolve the issue, Rehan Ahmed and Ghulam Mohiuddin reached a compromise agreement in 1978. This agreement acknowledged the validity of the initial sale agreement and obligated Ghulam Mohiuddin to execute the sale deed upon receiving the remaining balance payment. The agreement also included provisions for Saeeduddin to vacate the third floor of the property, which he was occupying.
Objections and Legal Battles:
Despite the compromise, the case took another turn when Akhtar Un Nisa, wife of Saeeduddin, challenged the decree enforcing the agreement. She argued that the decree was invalid because both brothers (Ghulam Mohiuddin and Saeeduddin) were not signatories to the compromise agreement and that the property was jointly owned.
Initially, the Trial Court dismissed Akhtar Un Nisa's objections. However, the High Court overturned this decision, siding with Akhtar Un Nisa and declaring the decree void.
Supreme Court's Verdict:
Rehan Ahmed appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, reinstated the Trial Court's order and allowed Rehan Ahmed to enforce the decree.
The Supreme Court's reasoning focused on two key points:
1. Ownership of the Property: The Court established that Saeeduddin did not have ownership rights over the property. Ghulam Mohiuddin was the sole owner, making him the only necessary party for the compromise agreement.
2. Validity of the Compromise Agreement: The Court acknowledged delays in verifying the compromise agreement but determined that the Trial Court had ultimately fulfilled the verification requirements as mandated by law.
The Court also considered the fact that General Tariq, son of Saeeduddin and legal heir to both brothers, had previously challenged the execution proceedings unsuccessfully. Akhtar Un Nisa's objections were deemed an abuse of the legal process due to this prior dismissal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision brings an end to a lengthy legal battle and allows Rehan Ahmed to finally acquire the property he contracted to purchase over four decades ago. The case highlights the importance of clear ownership rights and the enforceability of valid compromise agreements in property disputes.