The Jodha Ram vs. Kaushaliya Dispute: Supreme Court Judgement Summary

The long-standing legal battle between Jodha Ram and Kaushaliya has finally come to a resolution with the Supreme Court’s judgement. The court’s decision in this case marks a crucial moment in the dispute over property rights and settlements. Let’s dive into the details of the case and understand the implications of the court’s ruling.


  • Kaushaliya agreed to hand over vacant possession of Jodha Bhawan and Meera Bhawan to her father Jodha Ram as per the Settlement Agreement.
  • Kaushaliya filed a suit for injunction against her father Jodha Ram for some of the properties.
  • Kaushaliya undertook not to create any third party rights in the properties until final settlement.
  • Kaushaliya did not hand over all the properties as required by the Settlement Agreement and Court order.
  • The litigation between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram continued with Kaushaliya losing before the Trial Court.
  • Kaushaliya initiated a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance by Jodha Ram of Court orders.
  • The Settlement Agreement included terms for Jodha Ram to purchase a plot for Kaushaliya and for Kaushaliya to hand over possession of disputed and undisputed properties.
  • Kaushaliya handed over some portion of the premises as per the Agreement.
  • The Court directed Kaushaliya to vacate the premises within 10 days.
  • Kaushaliya will be provided further accommodation agreed upon by the respondent.

Also Read: Dispensation with Personal Appearance in Criminal Case: Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court of India


  • The applicants have no locus in the present proceedings and before the Executing Court as they did not make further payment resulting in the cancellation of the Agreement to Sell in 2007.
  • The Trial Court refused to grant any interim injunction in favor of the applicants in a suit for permanent injunction.
  • Ramu Ram transferred the property to Kishan Gopal Singh based on the Agreement to Sell in 2013, even though he had no title or ownership.
  • The Agreement to Sell does not confer any right, title, or interest.
  • The applicants claim possession and title based on the Agreement to Sell as they have never filed a suit claiming ownership.
  • The dispute between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram taken to the Supreme Court through SLP No.10022 of 2016 did not involve the disputed properties, specifically Plot Nos. 29 & 29A.
  • Ramu Ram Vishnoi paid only Rs. 51,000 in 2006 and the applicants of M.A. No. 2485 of 2018 have no right or title in the disputed properties at Jodha House.
  • The properties in question cannot be said to be undisputed properties.
  • The Settlement dated 10.02.2017 incorrectly states that the properties in Jodha Bhawan are undisputed property of Jodha Ram.
  • Kaushaliya and Ramu Ram are suspected to be acting in collusion.
  • The disputed properties were not part of the original suit and therefore could not have been the subject matter of the order dated 05.05.2017 or the Settlement between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram.
  • Request to dismiss the application by Ramu Ram Vishnoi and Rampal and the contempt petition initiated by Kaushaliya.
  • Request to direct the Executing Court to hand over possession of the properties rightfully belonging to Jodha Ram as per the court’s order and the Settlement dated 10.02.2017.

Also Read: Contractor vs. FCI: Determination of Profit and Wage Dispute


  • The dispute between Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram reached the Supreme Court through an SLP.
  • The matter was referred to Supreme Court Mediation Centre for an amicable settlement.
  • Executions proceedings are pending in respect thereof.
  • Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 resolving the entire dispute.
  • The Court disposed of the SLP as per the Settlement Agreement, directing both parties to abide by its terms.
  • Agreement to Sell does not confer ownership or interest in the property.
  • Applicants claiming ownership through Agreement to Sell have no standing to object to the Settlement Agreement.
  • Ramu Ram and Rampal, claiming ownership through an Agreement to Sell, never filed a suit for specific performance.
  • The Mediation process allowed exploring amicable settlements beyond the original suit.
  • The Mediation outcome is considered part of the Court’s Order.
  • The order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable regardless of whether the properties involved were part of the original proceedings before the Court.
  • The order issued by the Court based on the Settlement Agreement is binding on the parties involved and must be followed.
  • Arguments stating that the properties in question were not part of the original suit before the Trial cannot be accepted, as they could have been included in the Settlement Agreement.

Also Read: Acquittal Upheld: State v. Bhanwar Lal


  • Executing Court must execute the order dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 in its true spirit.
  • Both parties Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram must comply with the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and the order passed on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 fully and in its true spirit.
  • Contempt Petition is disposed of at this stage.
  • M.A. No.2485 of 2018 is dismissed.
  • All pending litigations between the parties must be withdrawn by each party within eight weeks from the final settlement/consent order of the Hon’ble Court.
  • Executing Court is directed to ensure full compliance with the present order and the earlier order dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022.
  • All persons claiming possession of the disputed properties, including Plot Nos. 29 and 29A of the Jodha House, must hand over peaceful and vacant possession to Jodha Ram within four weeks from today.


Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-001868 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *