HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.1274 of 2021
ORDER:
The appellant in S.A.No.587 of 2014 and the petitioner in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014 is the petitioner. The respondent is the 2nd respondent in the above matters.
2. The respondent along with his mother and sisters laid a suit for partition in O.S.No.75 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Adoni, Kurnool District. On contest, it was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 06.05.1988. The property concerned to this suit is stated to be matruka held by Sri Beldar Hussain Sab. The plaintiffs in that suit preferred A.S.No.86 of 1988 on the file of the Court of then Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Adoni and it was allowed by the decree and judgment dated 12.12.1995. The defendants therein preferred S.A.No.480 of 1997 on the file of this Court and it was dismissed by judgment dated 25.07.2008.
3. Pursuant to preliminary decree for partition in their favour passed in A.S.No.86 of 1988 the respondent along with other plaintiffs filed I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 before the trial Court during pendency of S.A.No.480 of 1997 for passing final decree. Final decree was passed therein and basing on the reports of the commissioner, 8 plots in S.No.376 and S.No.377/2 of Mandhagiri were allotted to the plaintiffs.
4. The petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite of plot No.19 under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1982 from the 3rd defendant Sri Abdul MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 2 Rawoof. Basing on this sale transaction, the petitioner and others sought to implead themselves as parties to the final decree petition filing I.A.No.973 of 2009 in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979. It was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner and others filed C.R.P.Nos.4930, 5027 and 4272 of 2010 before this Court when was at Hyderabad. They were allowed. Consequently, the petitioner was added as respondent No.25 in the final decree petition in I.A.No.18 of 1996.
5. The petitioner filed A.S.No.43 of 2013 against the orders passed in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Adoni. Upon hearing the parties, A.S.No.43 of 2013 was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 03.04.2014 confirming the final decree passed.
6. The petitioner preferred S.A.No.587 of 2014 on the file of this Court against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.43 of 2013 and in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014, status quo was directed to be maintained as per order on 16.09.2014. This order reads as follows:
"In view of the orders passed by this Court in CRP Nos.4930, 5027 and 4272 of 2010, there shall be status quo as far as the land purchased by the appellant is concerned. The lower court may proceed with regard to the remaining properties."
7. Now, it is the complaint of the petitioner that in spite of knowing the afore-stated order, being a party to S.A.No.587 of 2014, the respondent executed a release deed bearing document No.8403 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016 in respect of plot No.19 to an extent of 266.66 sq.yards of Mandhagiri village, Adoni Mandal. She further complained that the MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 3 respondent executed release deed bearing document No.2632 of 2018, dated 28.03.2018 in favour of one Sri Jakir Hussain. Further complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent mortgaged this property under registered document No.2667 of 2018 in favour of a third party, which he later cancelled through another registered document dated 29.12.2018 bearing No.11923 of 2018.
8. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent violated the afore-stated orders of status quo, making himself liable for contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
9. The respondent resisted this version of the petitioner in the counter and referred to nature of the relief sought in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014 in S.A.No.587 of 2014, which is for the purpose of stay of operation of order of final decree dated 03.05.2013 in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979. The respondent further contended that by the date of the afore-stated order, he had already taken delivery of the properties including plot No.19 through process of the Court on 01.05.2014 and this plot No.19 was allotted to him as per the final decree. The respondent further stated that his mother Smt.Katoon Bee, died during pendency of I.A.No.18 of 1996 and that he obtained a relinquishment deed dated 23.09.2016 under document No.8403 of 2016 covering entire properties allotted to the plaintiffs. He further stated that by then the plaintiffs 3 and 4, namely Smt. Salima Bee and Smt. Zubeda Bee also died.
10. The respondent further stated in his counter that he executed GPA in favour of Sri Jakir Hussain under document No.2632 dated 28.03.
MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 4 2018 in respect of Plot Nos.19 and 21 without consideration, which was cancelled on 26.11.2018 under a registered document No.11923 of 2018. However, he admitted that he mortgaged plot No.19 in favour of third party vide registered document No.26672 of 2018. He contended that status quo order was passed in SAMP No.1661 of 2014 in S.A.No.587 of 2014, after this plot was delivered to him through the process of the Court and hence SAMP No.1661 of 2014 became infructuous.
11. Contending that the petitioner was aware of all the above proceedings including delivery of this plot to him through the process of the Court, it is alleged by the respondent that she has suppressed this fact and that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of 'doctrine of ubrieman fides'. The respondent also asserted that this plot in question is vacant even now without any structures and that the petitioner being purchaser pendente lite is not entitled for any equities. Stating that there is no deliberate or intentional violation of the orders of this Court, the respondent stated that no contempt action is attracted against him. Thus contending, the respondent sought dismissal of this contempt petition against him.
12. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel for Sri K.Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncham, learned counsel for the respondent.
13. Now, the point for determination is-"Whether in the given facts and circumstances, the respondent is liable for contempt at the instance MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 5 of the petitioner for his alleged violation of the order in SAMP No.1661 of 2004 in S.A.No.587 of 2014 dated 16.09.2014?"
POINT:
14. The complaint of the petitioner is that there is willful and deliberate violation of interim order of this Court referred to above by the respondent in bringing out certain registered documents and creating encumbrances with reference to plot No.19, which is part of the subject matter in dispute in S.A.No.587 of 2014.
15. The status of the petitioner being purchaser pendente lite of this plot is not in dispute.
16. It is the specific contention of the respondent that in the final decree petition pursuant to the final decree passed, he had already obtained delivery of this plot No.19 through process of the Court on 01.05.2014. Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the respondent, also produced a photocopy of the report of the Amin, who effected delivery on 01.05.2014 to the respondent, pursuant to warrant issued for this purpose in E.P.No.2 of 2014. Execution was levied pursuant to the final decree passed in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Adoni.
17. It is also the contention of the respondent that by the date of the interim order referred to above granting status quo, he was already put in possession of these plots which fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner suppressing the same and when the conduct of the petitioner is of such nature, when the relief now sought by MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 6 her as such cannot be, countenanced, no further action in this matter is necessary.
18. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in a contempt action what is necessary for the Court to consider is nature of interim relief passed basing on which contempt action is initiated and if this interim order stood violated or not. The learned senior counsel further contended that the entire version of the respondent in this case is touching upon merits, which need not be considered in an action of this nature. Asserting that the acts of the respondent complained of are in clear violation of the interim orders passed by this Court which he did deliberately, learned senior counsel called for necessary action against the respondent under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
19. The alleged acts of violation of this interim order by the respondent are entering into a release deed among the family members of the respondent. A copy of encumbrance certificate filed by the petitioner shows that document No.8403 of 2016 was entered among the respondent, his mother-Smt. Khatoon Bee and one of his sisters-Khairum Bee on 23.09.2016. It is the specific contention of the respondent that that eight (08) plots allotted to the plaintiffs as per the final decree are now vested in him, not only account of death of other plaintiffs but also on account of release deed executed in his favour by other plaintiffs. Thus, document No.8403 of 2016 was executed by other plaintiffs in favour of the respondent. Therefore, this transaction is clearly out of the purview of the alleged contempt action, since the respondent cannot be MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 7 held liable on account of the release deed execute by other members of the family in his favour.
20. Another instance pointed out is stated by the petitioner is a release deed bearing document No.2632 of 2018, dated 28.03.2018. However, the respondent stated that he had executed a registered GPA under this document in favour of Sri Jakir Hussain. Therefore, it is not a release deed. Execution of GPA as such cannot attract contempt in any manner. Therefore, this transaction is also out of the purview of the contempt action.
21. Creating a registered mortgage in favour of a third party under document No.2667 of 2018 on 29.03.2018 is admitted by the respondent. According to the version of the petitioner this mortgage is no more subsisting, since the respondent had cancelled it through registered document No.11923 of 2018 dated 29.12.2018.
22. It is pertinent to consider the relief sought in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014 by the petitioner. It is for the purpose of stay of final decree and its proceedings in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 pending disposal of S.A.No.582 of 2014. This Court while passing interim order considered the orders in CRP No.4930, 5027 and 4272 of 2010 whereby not only the petitioner but also other parties were directed, to be added as respondents to the pending final decree petition in I.A.No.18 of 1996 by then. So what was sought was stay of further proceedings relating to final decree and thereupon status quo was directed to be maintained in relation to the lands purchased by the petitioner.
MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 8
23. Status quo order refers to the date of proceedings in final decree, namely 03.05.2013 in the prayer of the petition indicating that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings pursued in that final decree petition. Effect of delivery of this plot No.19 in question through the process of the Court in E.P.No.2 of 2014 as contended by the respondent on 01.05.2014 as such cannot be brushed aside. Since it being proceedings of the Court, it requires due consideration.
24. The petitioner could have produced registration extracts of the documents relied on in this petition to substantiate her claim instead of copy of the encumbrance certificate. One of the documents referred to by the petitioner, namely document No.2632 of 2018 is not a release deed according to the respondent, but only a GPA. Reference as such to this document as a release deed is further indicative of the fact that the petitioner did not make proper enquiry before filing this petition for contempt. The copy of the encumbrance certificate did not mention the nature of this document bearing No.2632 of 2018.
25. The mortgage transaction being not in force now according to the version of the petitioner, which the respondent had entered into with a third party. No intention as such to flout the orders of this Court is seen nor demonstrated by the material produced by the petitioner. It is desirable therefore, to reject this claim of the petitioner for contempt action against the respondent.
26. As rightly contended for the respondent, she had chosen to initiate this action nearly 3 to 5 years after the alleged registered MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 9 transactions. Though delay may not be a relevant factor in arriving at the nature of the alleged action being contemptuous or otherwise, it makes out a circumstance to suspect the bona fides of the petitioner. It is open for the petitioner to canvass her case in the second appeal.
27. Therefore, on the material, finding no reason to initiate contempt action against the respondent, this petition has to be dismissed.
28. In the result, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.
________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt: 01.02.2022 RR MVRJ, C.C.No.1274 of 2021 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No.1274 OF 2021 Dt: 01.02.2022 RR