ORDER :

1. The present contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) to take action and punish the accused-contemnor for deliberate and willful disobedience of the interim order of this Court dated 22.11.2012 in RSA No.553/2012.

2. The case of the complainants is that the complainants had filed suit in O.S. No.29/2009 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011. Aggrieved by which, the complainants preferred R.A.No.145/2011, which is also came to be dismissed on 05.12.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the regular appeal, the complainants preferred RSA No.553/2012 before this Court and the said appeal was admitted and an interim order was granted directing the respondent therein i.e., the accused-contemnor not to alienate/encumber/create or otherwise discharge the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal.

3. It is stated by the complainants that, though the interim order was well within the knowledge of the accused-contemnor, and he willfully disobeyed the interim order granted by this Court dated 22.11.2012 and has created third party rights by executing registered sale deed dated 07.04.2014 in favour of one Smt. Rajamma wife of H.M. Girish in respect of item No.4 and by executing a registered mortgage deed dated 07.03.2014 in favour of one B. Mahesh in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. According to the complainants, the said fact came to the knowledge of the complainants only when the RTC extracts was obtained by the complainants in respect of the suit schedule property. The complainants therefore, seek to initiate appropriate action against the accused-contemnor for having committed deliberate, willful disobedience of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on the contempt petition, 2nd accused-contemnor appeared and filed his counter. The 1st accused (a) mother of the 2nd accused-contemnor died during the pendency of the contempt petition and vide order dated 18.07.2017, 1st accused (a) was deleted and the present contempt is only against the 2nd accused-contemnor, who is the sole accused.

5. The accused-contemnor contended in his counter affidavit that he is the adopted son of T.M. Mahadevappa and his father late T.M. Mahadevappa had incurred heavy loans from various private persons and in order to reimburse the loan amount, they were forced to mortgage item No.1 and obtained some amount to clear the loan borrowed by them and further, in spite of mortgaging item No.1, the loans could not be cleared and hence, they sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property to the third party. According to the accused-contemnor after the death of his father and on knowing about the filing of the contempt, all efforts have been made to cancel the alleged sale deed however, the purchaser had not agreed for the cancellation of the sale deed. According to the accused-contemnor the mortgage obtained in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property is also been cleared on 11.12.2017. Stating these grounds, the accused-contemnor sought to tender unconditional apology for unintentional mistake committed by his father late T.M. Mahadevappa and himself, according to the accused-contemnor, the said acts were for the bonafide reason to clear the old debts and it was necessary for the survival of their family members and accordingly, sought to drop the contempt proceedings.

6. By way of additional counter affidavit dated 21.06.2018 stated that the rights of the complainants would be subject to result of the second appeal, which is pending consideration. It is further stated that item Nos.1 and 4 are the self acquired property of late T.M. Mahadevappa and not the joint family property as contended by the complainants. Further contents of the cou