Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Jai Bhagwan Sharma – Petitioner
Vs.
Munni Devi – Respondent
Cont. Cas (C) No. 841 of 2018, CM Appl. No. 21163 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2022
Specific Relief Act - Section 6 & 9 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(b) and 13 - Restoration of possession - Wilful disobedience to any judgment - Wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court - Petitioner states that he is the owner of a built up property purchased vide a registered sale deed - It is stated that in 1973, the Petitioner herein permitted the husband of the Respondent herein to occupy - Petitioner was posted in Nepal as a Government employee. It is stated that when the Petitioner returned to India in 1982, he would be posted in different parts of the country and he used to collect the licence fee from the husband of the Respondent herein at an interval of 2-3 months - Respondent herein has only come up with the false claim that she was in possession of land measuring 100 Sq.Yds. in the premises in question without adducing any evidence to this effect in any of the suits. Despite categorical directions rendered by the learned Trial Court and this Court, the Respondent has remained obstinate in her stance that the premises in question is possessed by her by way of adverse possession. This extent of disobedience of law can be stated to be nothing less than contempt of Court, thereby, bringing down the majesty of law and making a mockery of the temple of justice. (Para 23)
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner forcefully occupied the premises in question, no undertaking would have been given by the Respondent and the Appeal would also have been dismissed as infructuous - Petitioner was made to waive off the mesne profits - Respondent will hand over the possession of the land premises in question to Petitioner on or before - Respondent has failed to prove in any forum that she was in possession of the land premises in question - Fact that Respondent has withdrawn Suit - Court has repeatedly held that all decrees and orders are executable under the CPC, including consent decrees and orders, but merely because an order or decree is executable, it would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Apex Court has also held that in view of purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, i.e. preventing interference in the course of administration of justice - Court is of the opinion that Respondent has only come up with the false claim that she was in possession of land premises in question without adducing any evidence to this effect in any of the suits. Despite categorical directions rendered by learned Trial Court and this Court - Respondent has remained obstinate in her stance that the premises in question is possessed by her by way of adverse possession.
Result : Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the Respondent herein for wilfully disobeying the Judgment/Order dated 24.07.2018, passed by this Court in RFA No. 567/2018 and for wilful breach of the undertaking given to this Court on 09.08.2018 in compliance of the Order dated 24.07.2018.
2. The case has a chequered history. The Petitioner states that he is the owner of a built up property bearing No. F-163, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, admeasuring 223 Sq. Yards (hereinafter referred to as “the premises in question”), which he had purchased vide a registered sale deed dated 17.10.1970. It is stated that in 1973, the Petitioner herein permitted the husband of the Respondent herein to occupy an area of 50 Sq. Yards (marked in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the petition) in the premises in question at a license fee of Rs. 550/- per month. It is stated that the Petitioner was posted in Nepal as a Government employee. It is stated that when the Petitioner returned to India in 1982, he would be posted in different parts of the country and he used to collect the licence fee from the husband of the Respondent herein at an interval of 2-3 months. It is stated that the Petitioner retired from service in 1996 and shifted to the premises in question. It is stated that the Petitioner herein asked the husband of the Respondent to vacate the portion of the premises in question that was in possession of the husband of the Respondent, i.e. 50 Sq. Yards in 2002. It is stated that when the husband of the Respondent refused to vacate the premises in question, the Petitioner herein filed a Suit, being Suit No. 408/2008 (New No. 17074/2016), before the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with the following prayers:
(b) Decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling or alienating the portion of the property No. F-163, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, which is in her occupation, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint.
(c) Decree of mandatory injunction for directions to the defendant to pay damages of Rs. 34,600/- for unauthorized user of the portion in her use and occupation in property No. F-163, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, w.e.f. March, 2002.”
3. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the Respondent herein had filed a Suit, being Suit No. 385/1996, against the Petitioner herein for a declaration that she was the owner of the premises in question by way of adverse possession. In the said suit, it was stated that the Respondent was in occupation of 100 Sq. Yards of the premises in question and the Respondent had perfected the title of the premises in question by way of adverse possession as she had been staying at the premises for over twenty years. The Respondent herein withdrew the said Suit on 07.02.2002 in view of the statement made by the Petitioner herein that the Respondent would not be disposed from the premises in question without following the due process of law.
4. In the Suit filed by the Petitioner herein, i.e. Suit No. 408/2008, the Defendant, i.e. the Respondent herein, has stated that the Petitioner herein is not the owner of the premises in question, and that the Respondent is the owner and is in occupation of an area measuring 100 Sq. Yards of the premises in question. It is further stated that out of 223 Sq. Yards, the Petitioner herein forcibly occupied 100 Sq. Yards of the premises in question. The Trial Court vide Order dated 04.04.2018 held that though the Petitioner herein has proved that he is the owner of the premises in question, it also held that the Petitioner had been unable to prove that the Respondent or her husb
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
