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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Jai Bhagwan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Munni Devi - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 841 of 2018 & CM Appl. 21163 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2022




Consent decrees are enforceable under contempt law and violations constitute contempt regardless of their nature of acceptance.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Wilful disobedience of court orders - The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings for disobeying the court's judgment/order dated 24.07.2018, wherein the respondent was to vacate premises by a set date - The respondent claimed ownership by adverse possession but failed to substantiate her claim. (Paras 1, 5, 17, 23)

(B) Legal standing in contempt proceedings - A consent decree holds the same weight as any decree passed after adjudication, and violations of the decree are contemptuous regardless of their nature of acceptance. (Paras 22, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to assert ownership of a property where the respondent had occupied part of it since 2002. The respondent was the widow of a previous licensee. Despite legal proceedings, she failed to vacate the premises as ordered by the court. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent had not established her ownership claim and had committed contempt by failing to vacate premises as per the court's directive. (Paras 24)

Issues: The case primarily addressed whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the earlier court order and whether her claims of ownership by adverse possession hold merit. (Paras 5, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that consent decrees are enforceable and the defendant's failure to comply constituted contempt. It emphasized the importance of following court orders to maintain judicial authority. (Paras 22, 25)

Result: The respondent was found in contempt and liable for eviction from the premises.

Table of Content
1. background of property ownership and disputes (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. previous court rulings and agreements (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. filing of contempt petition (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments against contempt allegations (Para 9 , 10)
5. evidence assessment regarding possession (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. undertakings and compliance requirements (Para 15 , 16)
7. refutation of respondent's claims (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. legal standards for contempt (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. finding of contempt and potential penalties (Para 23 , 24)
10. conclusion and next steps (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral)--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:

    "(a) Decree of possession against the defendant in respect of 50 sqr. yards land in property no. F-163, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, on which the defendant is living in unauthorized occupation in a jhuggi (hutment) since March, 2002.

    (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 Responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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