Transfers of immovable property executed in violation of court orders are considered void and confer no rights to the transferee, preserving the integrity of judicial authority.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ.

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 16.12.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in Cont. Cas (C) No. 1415/2023 captioned Archana Jain v. Rajinder Kumar Jain & Ors. whereby the learned Single Judge had found that respondent no.2 (arrayed as respondent no.1 in the contempt petition) had executed the sale deeds in respect of the property bearing No. WB-57 and WB-57A, Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (hereafter the suit property), or part thereof, in willful defiance of the judicial orders. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge declared the sale-executed in favour of the appellants as void ab initio. It is material to note that the impugned order was passed at an interim stage and the learned Single Judge expressly clarified that the submissions regarding sale consideration paid by the appellants (respondents no.4 and 5 in the contempt petition) would be examined on the next date of hearing.

2. Respondent no.1 (Ms Archana Jain) had filed the aforementioned contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter the CC Act) for willful disobedience of the orders dated 02.11.2015 and 29.03.2016 passed by this court in RFA No.748/2015 whereby this court had directed the parties to the said appeal, which included respondent nos. 2 and 3, to maintain status quo as regards to the possession and title of the suit property.

3. The said appeal [RFA No.748/2015] was filed by respondent no.1’s mother Late Smt. Nirmal Kumari Jain impugning an order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No.240/14/05. Late Smt. Nirmal Kumari Jain had filed the said suit seeking partition and other reliefs in regard to the suit property against Rajinder Kumar Jain (respondent no.2), his wife Smt. Madhvi Jain (respondent no.3) and their son Rohan Jain (respondent no.4). This court issued a notice in the said appeal [RFA No.748/2015] on 02.11.2015 and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and title of the suit property till the next date of hearing. The appeal was admitted on 29.03.2016 and ad interim order of status quo was made absolute. The said appeal is pending and is listed in the category of “Regular Matters”.

4. Respondent no.1 had alleged that on 05.08.2016, respondent nos.2 and 3 had broken the locks of the suit property and taken over the physical possession of the same. A contempt petition [being Cont. Cas (C) No.1138/2016] was filed by Smt. Nirmal Kumari Jain, since deceased, against respondents no.2 and 3. The said contempt petition is pending. Respondent no.1 alleged that on 12.02.2019, respondent no.2 in connivance with respondent no.3 sold a portion of the suit property in favour of the appellants.

5. The appellants claim that they are the owners and in possession of property bearing No. WB-57A, Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092 which they claim to have purchased by way of registered sale deeds dated 05.02.2019 and 09.08.2019. The said sale deeds stand cancelled by the impugned order.

6. The appellants do not dispute that this court had passed an order dated 02.11.2015 in RFA 748/2015 directing the status quo to be maintained in regard to the title and possession of the suit property and the said order was confirmed by an order dated 29.03.2016.

7. The appellants states that in the year 2019, respondent no.2 (incorrectly mentioned as respondent no.1 in the appeal) had appr