Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 200
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.S. Subramani
A. Chinnarajan
Versus
N.S. Subbaiyah and others
C.R.P.No.3524 of 1997
Decided On : 18-02-1998
Mr. P. Bagyalakshmi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate for Respondents.
A party in contempt cannot be heard, but the Court has the discretion to refuse to hear a party only on those occasions when his contempt impedes the course of justice.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - INTERIM INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - JURISDICTION - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of a property, alleging that they came into possession on the basis of a family arrangement entered into on 11. 1997. The first defendant, a neighbor, was attempting to knock off all the property by same hook or crook, and with that intention, trespassed into the same and wanted to put up construction. The plaintiffs moved for an injunction to restrain the first defendant from putting up any construction in the plaint schedule property. The lower Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any construction in the suit property. The first defendant filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the first defendant was not entitled to be heard unless he purged himself from the contempt for which proceedings had been initiated against him. However, the Court also held that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents could not be accepted, as there was no clear and cogent evidence that the party had violated the Order. The Court further held that the respondents were not entitled to get an injunction, as they had not made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience was not in their favor.
Issues: 1. Whether the first defendant was entitled to be heard in the revision petition without purging himself from the contempt for which proceedings had been initiated against him? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to get an injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any construction in the suit property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the first defendant was not entitled to be heard in the revision petition without purging himself from the contempt for which proceedings had been initiated against him, as it was a well-established principle that a party in contempt cannot be heard. However, the Court also held that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents could not be accepted, as there was no clear and cogent evidence that the party had violated the Order. The Court further held that the respondents were not entitled to get an injunction, as they had not made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience was not in their favor.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim injunction granted by the lower Court.
.1. This Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palni. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff’s and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and sized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry int o the past and future mesne profits under Or.20, Rule 12, C.P.C., and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.
2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus:- First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 25. 1964. Plaint schedule property was one of the items allotted to his father late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. It is not disputed that pursuant to the partition, Ramasami Chettiar had obtained absolute right and exclusive right over the same. It is seen that Ramasami Chettiar executed a will on 30.1.1980, bequesthing all his properties to the second plaintiff herein, who is also the son of the first plaintiff. There was difference of opinion between first plaintiff and his father. The will was cancelled. The father began to deal with the property and sold the plaint schedule item to a third person. There was a suit filed by the very same first plaintiff as O.S.No.183 of 1988, on the file of Subordinate Judges, Periakulam. That suit was to restrain the late father, by a permanent prohibitory injunction from alienating or dealing with the properties retained by him and also from interfering with the possession of those properties by the first plaintiff herein. In that suit, the plaint property was not an item. In that suit, it was further stated that the father has already executed a sale deed, in favour of a stranger, and the first plaintiff reserves his right to have the same impeached in appropriate proceedings. In that plaint, the first plaintiff herein also referred to a family arrangement dated 1. 1987 and the allegation was that the father is alienating the properties violating the terms of the family arrangement.
.3. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the father in that suit, wherein he admitted the execution of the family arrangement of 1987 and the circumstances under which he had revoked the will already executed by him. He also contended that he continued to be the absolute owner of all the properties obtained by him under the 1964 document, and the so called family arrangement never came into effect, and it is an unregistered deed.
.He also denied having received any amount from the first plaintiff, but contended that certain documents were fabricated by the first plaintiff, exploiting his weakness and old age. He also alleged that he is residing away from the first plaintiffs house and the first plaintiff was also not maintaining him ever since the date of the so-called family arrangement. He also said that all the properties excepting one that has been sold by him continues in his possession.
4. The suit was not prosecuted further since there was a compromise. As per the terms of the compromise, first plaintiff declare that his father is the absolute, owner of all the properties scheduled to that plaint, and his father who is now more than 80, is not in a position to manage the same and, therefore, those properties are entrusted to the first plaintiff so that out of the income, first plaintiff should maintain his parents. Certain amounts were also directed to be paid annually. He also declared that those properties will ultimately go to his grandson, who is the second plaintiff herein. The father also agreed that he will not alienates the prop
