Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM
Jamals & Others - Appellant
Versus
P.Syamala & Others - Respondents
Contempt Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of 2004
Decided On : 23 August 2005
Contempt - Violation of Status Quo and ABJ Orders - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Contempt of Courts Act, Section 12] - [Section 47 of the Registration Act, Section 17 of the Registration Act, Section 64(2) C.P.C.] - The court found that the contemners violated the status quo order and ABJ order by presenting sale deeds for registration during the period when the orders were in force. However, the court held that the presentation of sale deeds while status quo was in force did not amount to deliberate and wanton violation of the status quo order, and the registration of the sale deeds after the ABJ order was set aside did not constitute contempt as the transfer of property had not taken place when the ABJ order was in force. The court also discharged the Sub Registrar from the contempt proceedings, as the receipt of the documents and keeping them pending without registration was not considered an act of contempt. The court set aside the order of contempt and discharged the contemners, emphasizing the need for judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with actions for contempt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the contemners were found guilty of violating the status quo and ABJ orders by presenting sale deeds for registration during the period when the orders were in force. The contemners argued that the presentation of sale deeds while status quo was in force did not amount to contempt, and the registration of the sale deeds after the ABJ order was set aside did not constitute contempt as the transfer of property had not taken place when the ABJ order was in force.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the presentation of sale deeds while status quo was in force did not amount to deliberate and wanton violation of the status quo order, and the registration of the sale deeds after the ABJ order was set aside did not constitute contempt as the transfer of property had not taken place when the ABJ order was in force. The court also discharged the Sub Registrar from the contempt proceedings, as the receipt of the documents and keeping them pending without registration was not considered an act of contempt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the contemners' actions constituted contempt of court by violating the status quo and ABJ orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presentation of sale deeds while status quo was in force did not amount to deliberate and wanton violation of the status quo order, and the registration of the sale deeds after the ABJ order was set aside did not constitute contempt as the transfer of property had not taken place when the ABJ order was in force. The court also discharged the Sub Registrar from the contempt proceedings, as the receipt of the documents and keeping them pending without registration was not considered an act of contempt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of contempt and discharged the contemners, emphasizing the need for judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with actions for contempt.
(Contempt Appeals against the order passed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Rajan in Contempt Petition No.319 of 2004 dated 20.12.2004.)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
P.Syamala, the Proprietrix of Prajwal Associates and P.Bhaskara Reddy filed a suit against the defendants 1 to 6 for specific performance or in the alternative, for return of the advance amount for the oral sale. Pending the suit, they filed an application for attachment of the suit property before judgment. The same was ordered. Despite that, the respondents/defendants sold the property to others and executed sale deeds which were presented in the Sub Registrar's Office for registration.
This is the subject matter of contempt in the contempt application filed by Syamala and Bhaskara Reddy, the plaintiffs, the applicants in the Contempt Application No.319 of 2004.
2. Justice A.K.Rajan, the learned single Judge, ultimately after enquiry held the contemners 1 to 6, 7, 8 and 24 guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts act and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the contemners. The contemners 7, 8 and 24 have filed appeal in Contempt Appeal No.15 of 2004 and the contemners 1 to 6 have also filed separate appeal in Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2004 challenging this order before this Division Bench.
3. The relevant facts that are required for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:
"(a) P.Syamala and P.Bhaskara Reddy, the applicants in the contempt application entered into an oral agreement of sale with one R.Gopinathan and others, the owners of the suit property, the contemners. In pursuance of the same, they paid Rs.70 lakhs towards the sale advance amount to Gopinathan and others, the owners of the property on 9.5.2001.
(b) On 8.7.2002, Gopinathan and others,the owners of the suit property without reference to the oral agreement of sale with Syamala and another, entered into a registered agreement of sale with M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.1,45,00,000/-. M/s.Jamals paid Rs.15,00,000/- as advance sale money.
(c) On 22.8.2002, Gopinathan and others, the contemners 1 to 6 executed and registered a power instrument in favour of M/s. Jamals, the 7th contemner after receiving the entire sale consideration. On coming to know of this, on 18.9.2002, Syamala and Bhaskara Reddy filed a suit in C.S.No.644 of 2002 for specific performance or in the alternative, for return of the advance amount against the defendants 1 to 6/contemners 1 to 6. Pending suit, they filed applications in O.A.Nos.640 and 641 of 2002 praying for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienation of the suit property.
(d) These applications for injunction from alienation were taken up for final disposal on 25.11.2002. The learned single Judge of this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the applications rejecting the prayer for injunction from alienation. Against the said order, the plaintiffs filed appeals in O.S.A.Nos.422 and 423 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. By the order dated 12.12.2002, the Division Bench passed an interim order against the defendants 1 to 6 and M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner to deposit Rs.70 lakhs into the Court within two weeks from the date of the order, failing which the applications for injunction shall stand allowed and as such, there will be an order of injunction from alienation in both the applications as prayed for.
(e) M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner filed a special leave petition against the order to deposit the amount. Similarly, Gopinathan and others, the defendants 1 to 6 also filed separate special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted stay of the impugned order of injunction passed by the High Court and however, directed the defendants 1 to 6/contemners 1 to 6 to deposit Rs.70 lakhs and in case of non-deposit, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to take any action as is av
AI
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
