Violation of a status quo order by executing an Agreement to Sell, receiving the sale consideration, and transferring possession constitutes a breach of the order.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. The Appellants impugn order dated 19.12.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold the Appellants guilty of disobeying/committing breach of status quo order dated 11.05.2010.

2. The Respondent (Plaintiff) has filed a Suit for declaration, pre-emption, permanent injunction, partition and possession claiming amongst other reliefs a decree of declaration that she is the co-owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/6th undivided share. The said Suit is still pending.

3. By order dated 11.05.2010, the learned Single Judge, noting the contention of the Respondent that the Defendants were contemplating to sell the suit property, directed the Defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit property.

4. The Respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A contending that the Appellant No. 2 (Respondent No. 1 in the application) by Agreement to Sell and Purchase and General Power of Attorney both dated 16.09.2010 had transferred her 1/3rd share and also handed over possession of various portions of the suit property in favour of Appellant No. 1 (Respondent No. 2 in the application) and Appellant No. 3 (Respondent No. 3 in the application), in spite of being aware of the order dated 11.05.2010, agreed to be a witness to the said transaction.

5. The impugned order held the Appellants guilty of disobeying/committing breach of status quo order dated 11.05.2010.

6. The Appellants while admitting the execution of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase and General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010, deny that they are in breach of the status quo order dated 11.05.2010.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the Appellants have merely executed an Agreement to Sell and Purchase and the physical possession has not been transferred. It is further contended that mere execution of the Agreement to Sell does not violate the status quo order as the Agreement to Sell does not create any right or title in the property. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2012 (1) SCC 656.

8. We find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that by execution of the Agreement to Sell the status quo order has not been violated.

9. The Appellants have not denied that at the time of the execution of the Agreement to Sell and the General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010 the Appellants were aware of the status quo order dated 11.05.2010.

10. The Agreement to Sell dated 16.09.2010 records that the total sale consideration agreed upon for sale of the 1/3rd share of the Appellant No. 2 is Rs. 22,00,000/-. The entire sale consideration is recorded to have been paid, it further records that the vacant and peaceful possession of the portion of the basement floor and ground floor and terrace roof rights of first floor out of the said property has been handed over and the proprietary/symbolic/ownership possession of the first floor which is occupied by tenants has also been handed over and the purchaser is empowered to collect the rents, etc.

11. Along with the Agreement to Sell, the Appellant No. 2 has also executed, in favour of the son of the Appellant No. 1, a registered General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010 giving all sorts of powers including the power to sell the 1/3rd share of the Appellant No. 2.

12. Direction to maintain status quo with regard to title and possession of the property implies that the injuncted party cannot thereafter take any steps or enter into any transaction whereby the status of the title or possession of the property are affected. It is not that only a completed transaction of sale or parting with possession would violate the status quo order but every step taken towards the completion of the transaction of sale or parting with possession would also amount to a violation/breach of the status quo order.

13. In th