The execution of sale deeds after an interim injunction constitutes contempt, treated as non-est, emphasizing the authority of court orders over property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC r.w. Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act complaining the willful disobedience and non-compliance of order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Second Appeal No. 307/2021.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that second appeal was admitted by order dated 12.08.2021, and following interim order was passed:-

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant is still in possession of the property in question, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing."

It is submitted that thereafter on 22.09.2021, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their vakalatanama in Second Appeal No. 307/2021. An application was also given by the applicant to Tahsildar, Tahsil Kailaras, District Morena, thereby informing about the interim order dated 12.08.2021 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 307/2021.

It is not out of place to mention here that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are real sisters, being daughters of Late Shri Ramratan.

In spite of the order dated 12.08.2021, respondent No. 3 - Vinda Bhardwaj executed a sale deed dated 02.11.2021 in favour of respondent No. 5 - Shiv Kumar Sharma, Annexure D, and sale deed dated 02.11.2021 in favour of respondent No. 6 - Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure E, respondent No. 1 - Ramshri Bairagi executed a sale deed dated 06.08.2021/12.08.2021 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure F, and respondent No. 2 - Mahadevi Bairagi executed a sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure G, and Mahadevi Bairagi also executed another sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of respondent No. 7 -Pradeep Mangal, Annexure H. It is also contended that Ramshri had also executed a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2021/12.08.2021 in favour of Sonu Bansal. It is submitted that although respondents were aware of the interim order dated 12.08.2021, in spite of that, they executed multiple sale deeds in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Pradeep Mangal, and Sonu Bansal. Thus, it is submitted that respondents have committed breach of temporary injunction order dated 12.08.2021. It is further submitted that any sale deed executed in breach of temporary injunction order has to be treated as non-est as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jehal Tanti & Ors. vs. Nageshwar Singh (D) through LRs. (2013) 14 SCC 689 .

3. Per contra, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed their reply and have stated as under:-

"3. For such contention petitioner has stated that the property has been sold by respondent and the sale deed has been enclosed. The sale deed executed by Vinda is dated 02-11-2021, sale deed executed by Ramshri is dated 06-08-2021 and sale deed executed by Mahadevi is dated 21-12-2022.

4. It is to be submitted here that there is no order in relation to stay over the transfer/alienation of the said property.

5. That, the interim order dated 12-08-2021 was passed ex parte by this Hon'ble Court and prior to said order no notices were issued nor were served to the respondents.

6. Although the order dated 12-08-2021 is about admission but no substantial question of law are reflected in the order.

7. It is to be submitted that so far as the status quo is concerned, it is only in relation to possession as following order has been passed:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant is still in possession of the proper