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
