LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Piara Singh (Since Deceased) Thr. His LRs Gurmeet Singh v. Kundan Singh (D) Thr. His Legal Heirs Jagjit Singh

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 591Decided 30 Apr 2019
Civil Appeal No. 4511 of 2019
Justice R. Banumathi · Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Background

This civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4511 of 2019, arising from a Regular Second Appeal decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 7 March 2014) was one of three connected appeals between the same families over a long-running property dispute. Rather than continue litigating, the parties on both sides negotiated and signed two formal Settlement Deeds (dated 15 January 2019 and 24 April 2019) to put an end to their dispute, and jointly approached the Supreme Court to record and give effect to this settlement.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and then disposed of the appeal strictly in terms of the parties' own Settlement Deeds, directing that the deeds would form part of its order. It made no independent findings on the merits of the underlying property dispute, since the parties themselves had already resolved it; the Court simply directed the Registry to draw up the formal decree in accordance with the settlement terms. Two companion appeals between the same families (Civil Appeal Nos. 4512 and 4513 of 2019), arising from related second appeals in the same litigation, were disposed of in the same manner on the same day.

Lesson Learnt

Parties to a long-pending civil dispute can bring litigation to a close at any stage, even after reaching the Supreme Court, by mutually agreeing to a settlement: the Court will readily give legal effect to a genuine, voluntary compromise rather than forcing the parties through a full contested hearing.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case