In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in the long-standing land dispute case between Amro Devi & Ors. (Appellants) and Julfi Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Ors. (Respondents). The case, which has its origins in a suit filed in 1983, has seen multiple rounds of litigation over the years.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Validity of Compromise Decree: The central issue was whether the statements made by the parties before the first Appellate Court in 1984 constituted a valid compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens, which restricts the transfer of property during the pendency of litigation, was also a key point of contention.
3. Possession and Ownership: The determination of rightful ownership and possession of the disputed land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 15, 2024, allowed the appeal filed by Amro Devi & Ors., setting aside the orders of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the first Appellate Court. The Court restored the Trial Court’s judgment dated December 19, 1992, which had dismissed the suit filed by Julfi Ram & Ors.
Key Observations
1. Compromise Decree: The Court emphasized that for a compromise to be valid under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, it must be in writing and signed by the parties. The mere oral statements made before the first Appellate Court did not meet this requirement. The Court stated, “Mere statements of the parties before court about such said compromise, cannot satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.”
2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The Court held that the sale deed executed on August 22, 1983, was not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens, as the parties had acted in a dishonest manner by subsequently stating that their suit be dismissed.
3. Possession and Ownership: The Court clarified that the dismissal of the suit in 1984 did not transfer ownership rights to the defendants, who remained tenants. The Court noted, “Dismissal of the suit would only mean that their status as tenants would continue.”
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14690 of 2015)
– Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
– Parties:
– Appellants: Amro Devi & Ors.
– Respondents: Julfi Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Ors.
– Lawyers: Not specified in the provided document
