Sulthan Said Ibrahim Vs Prakasan & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
A prolonged legal dispute over a property in Palakkad has escalated to the Supreme Court, highlighting procedural complexities and alleged attempts to impede the enforcement of a specific performance decree. The case, Sulthan Said Ibrahim Vs Prakasan & Ors, involves a plaintiff’s extensive effort to secure possession of a property despite obtaining a final decree for specific performance.
The foundation of the dispute dates back to an agreement to sell on June 14, 1996, where Jameela Beevi, the original defendant, agreed to sell a 1-cent property, which includes a tiled-roof shop, to Prakasan (respondent no. 1, original plaintiff) for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000. The agreement stipulated the plaintiff’s payment of the remaining Rs. 1,50,000 within three months. Sulthan Said Ibrahim, the appellant, who is Jameela Beevi’s grandson and was a witness to this agreement, is now actively involved in efforts to postpone the decree’s implementation.
A Detailed Account of Procedural Delays: The case history reveals a series of litigation phases and consequential delays:
Phase I: Ex-parte Decree and Subsequent Restoration (1996-1999) Prakasan initiated O.S. No. 617/1996 seeking specific performance after Jameela Beevi failed to execute the sale deed. An ex-parte decree was issued on June 30, 1998, instructing Jameela Beevi to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance payment. However, Jameela Beevi successfully challenged this ex-parte decree before the High Court in CMA No. 125 of 1999, leading to its restoration for a full trial.
