Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3715
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Janakiraman
Versus
G.P. Savithiri
Contempt Petition No.711 of 2007 and Sub Appln.No.235 of 2008
Decided On : 15-10-2008
For the Petitioner:V. Shanmugham, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mohanamurali, Advocate.
Willful violation of an undertaking given in court constitutes contempt of court, and any alienation made in violation of an order or undertaking can be declared null and void by the court.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Violation of Undertaking - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - [Contempt of Court] - [Violation of Undertaking] - [Contempt of Courts Act, 1971] - The court found the respondent guilty of contempt for violating an undertaking given in court by executing a sale deed, and declared the sale deed null and void.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent violated an undertaking given in court by executing a sale deed. The respondent contested, claiming the petitioner induced the sale deed and that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to withdraw the suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of contempt for willfully violating the undertaking and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000. The court also declared the sale deed null and void.
Issues: 1. Violation of undertaking by the respondent. 2. Whether the respondent is liable for contempt and the punishment. 3. Declaration of the sale deed as null and void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of the respondent in executing the sale deed amounted to willful violation of the undertaking, constituting contempt of court. The court also cited legal principles from Supreme Court judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court awarded a fine of Rs.1,000 to the respondent for contempt and declared the sale deed null and void.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The petitioner herein/plaintiff in O.A.No.188 of 2003 in C.S.No.784 of 2002 has brought-forth the contempt petition No.711 of 2007 alleging commission of an act of contempt by respondent herein, who figured as the 3rd respondent in the above said original application and the third defendant in the civil suit.
3. Sub Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed to declare the sale deed dated 09.08.2006 executed by the respondent in favour of M/s.Gatraj Jain & Sons and registered as document No.938 of 2006 in the office of Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 1 to be null and void.
4. The said suit C.S.No.784 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner herein for a decree declaring the sale deed dated 010. 2001 executed by Mrs.Kanagavalli, the first defendant in the suit in respect of the suit B schedule property, in favour of the respondent herein (third defendant) which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai -1 as document No.1003/2001 to be sham, nominal, void, illegal and inoperative, for cancellation of the said document, for a direction to the respondent herein to convey the suit property in favour of the petitioner on receipt of such sum as may be fixed by the court and for a permanent injunction restraining Mrs.Kanagavalli and Mr.Gerra Parthasarathy @ Murali, who figured as defendants 2 and 3 from in any manner interfering with the petitioners/plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A schedule property.
5. Pending disposal of the said suit, the petitioner herein/plaintiff in C.S.No.784 of 2002 filed O.A.No.188 of 2003 for interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from in any way encumbering or alienating the suit schedule properties pending final disposal of the suit. When the said application came up for hearing on 28.04.2003, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein made an undertaking on behalf of the respondent not to alienate or encumber the suit properties till the disposal of the suit. Hence, this court deemed it fit to record the said undertaking and close the said petition opining that no further order would be necessary in view of the fact that such an undertaking was given by the respondent herein.
6. Complaining that the respondent, after making the court to close the injunction petition in the light of the undertaking given by her, in violation of the said undertaking and without any regard for the order of the court recording such undertaking, executed a sale deed dated 09.08.2006 in favour of M/s.Gatraj Jain & Sons alienating a part of the suit properties for a consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-and got the sale deed registered as document No.938 of 2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar (Registration), Sowcarpet, Chennai and that the said act being in gross violation of the undertaking would amount to clear act of contempt on the part of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition for punishing the respondent for the above said act of contempt. The Sub Application No.235 of 2008 has been filed for declaring the said sale deed allegedly executed in violation of the undertaking to be null and void.
7. The respondent contested both the contempt petition and the sub application by filing separate counter affidavits denying the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the contempt petition as well as the sub application and contending that the petitioner having created a situation in which an undertaking was to be given by the respondent not to alienate or encumber the suit property pending disposal of the suit, clandestinely induced the respondent to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property to M/s.Gatraj Jain & Sons and there after has approached this court with an oblique motive to harass the respondent with the contempt petition as well as the sub application.
8. It is the contention raised by the respondent that the petitioner ente
