SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Cal) 1023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.
Gurmail Singh – Petitioner
VS.
Lakhbinder Sing – Contemnor
C.RC. No. 01 of 2016 In C.O. No. 1337 of 2005, C.RC. No. 02 of 2016 In C.O. No. 1337 of 2005 & C.RC. No. 03 of 2016 In C.O. No. 1338 of 2005
Decided On : 08-06-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.P. Roy Chowdhury, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. S.T. Mina, Gopal Ch. Ghosh
For the Contemnor : Saptansu Basu, Mainak Bose, Sandeep Kr. Tiwari

A transfer of property in violation of an order of injunction is void and the transferee acquires no title.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - VIOLATION OF INTERIM ORDER - STATUS QUO - SALE OF PROPERTY - VOID TRANSFER - SALE DEEDS DECLARED VOID - NO TITLE PASSED TO TRANSFEREES - PUNISHMENT IMPOSED.

Fact of the Case:

The alleged contemnor, Lakhvinder Singh, sold out properties involved in a partition suit in violation of an interim order of status quo passed by the court on his own revisional applications. The petitioners, who were parties to the partition suit, filed contempt applications seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and punishment for the contemnor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the contemnor had full knowledge of the interim order and that he had deliberately and intentionally sold out the properties in violation of the order. The court held that the sale deeds executed by the contemnor were void and that no title passed to the transferees.

Issues: 1. Whether the contemnor had violated the interim order of status quo passed by the court? 2. Whether the sale deeds executed by the contemnor were void?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contemnor had violated the interim order of status quo passed by the court as he had full knowledge of the order and had deliberately and intentionally sold out the properties in violation of the order. 2. The court held that the sale deeds executed by the contemnor were void as they were executed in violation of the interim order of status quo and that no title passed to the transferees.

Final Decision: The court declared the sale deeds executed by the contemnor as void and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- in each contempt petition.

JUDGMENT :

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.

All three contempt applications being C.P.A.N. 765 of 2014, C.P.A.N. 770 of 2014 and C.P.A.N. 771 of 2014 were filed by two petitioners namely, Gurmail Singh in C.RC. 01 of 2016 and Mahinder Singh in C.R.C. 02 of 2016 and C.RC. 03 of 2016 for alleged violation of interim order of status quo as on May 5, 2005 to be maintained by the alleged contemnor i.e. Lakhbinder Singh.

2. It is alleged that on two revisional applications filed by the alleged contemnor, Lakhvinder Singh, this Hon'ble Court on May 5, 2005 passed the following order :-

"Put up this revisional application as 'for orders' in the monthly combined list of cases for the month of June, 2005.

The parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of today, in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the revisional application".

3. It is alleged that the alleged contemnor viz., Lakhvinder Singh even in spite of getting an interim order of status quo as on May 5, 2005 in the aforementioned two revisional applications sold out some properties which are involved in the partition suit and in revisional applications in clear violation of the aforementioned order and therefore, committed contempt of this Hon'ble Court.

4. It is alleged that as per regulation governing the maintenance of land records in Punjab, there is periodical change of plot number and Khatauni numbers. The allegation was made that even in spite of pendency of the aforementioned two revisional applications before this Court and also continuance of the interim order dated May 5, 2005 the alleged contemnor by five registered sale deeds, of which the petitioners came to know very recently, have sold out some lands under present Khawab No.1006, 1006/1684 and 1179 under Khatauni No.1648. The petitioners have come to know that at least five sale deeds were executed by the alleged contemnor and sold some properties under the aforementioned Khawab and Khalallni which are part of the properties involved in the partition suit.

5. It was submitted that the alleged contemnor, Lakhvinder Singh, who himself is the revisionist before this Court obtained the interim order and he has full knowledge about the order he has obtained from this Court and its continuation till date. It was further alleged that even in spite of having knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court in the aforementioned two revisional cases the alleged contemnor viz., Lakhvinder Singh deliberately and intentionally sold out the properties involved in the partition suit. Accordingly, a prayer was made for cancellation of the alleged deeds executed by the alleged contemnor and for awarding punishment for such wilful violation.

6. Mr. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Mahinder Singh being the plaintiff in the partition suit obtained a preliminary decree in his favour wherein Lakhvinder Singh was the defendant. Lakhvinder Singh did not contest the suit although he has filed written statement. After preliminary decree was passed a prayer was made for passing final decree and final decree was also passed without any contest by the alleged contemnor, Lakhvinder Singh. Against that final decree, an application for setting aside the decree was moved by Lakhvinder Singh under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Against the order passed by the learned Trial Court an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court after hearing both sides reversed the order passed by the learned Judge allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against that the alleged contemnor, Lakhvinder Singh moved two revisional applications and obtained interim order.

7. Mr. Roychowdhury submitted in view of the Land Reforms Rules prevailing in the State of Punjab, plot number and khatian number which is Khawab number and Khatazmi number i

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top