Bombay High Court
Shamgonda Shidgonda Patil And ... vs Shivgonda Babgonda Patil And Ors. on 10 February, 2005
Author: B Marlapalle
Bench: B Marlapalle
JUDGMENT
B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. The Second Appeal No. 374 of 1995, filed by the present petitioners came to be admitted by this Court on 27.7.1995 and the same is pending. In the said Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 3389 of 1995 was filed for injunction. While granting Rule, the following interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) was ordered by this Court on 27.7.1995. The said prayer clause in the Civil Application reads as under:-
"That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above mentioned Second Appeal, the Respondents by themselves, their servants and agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner dealing with or disposing of or alienating or encumbering selling or transferring or inducting any third party into the suit properties or any of them or any part thereof." (Emphasis supplied).
2. It is alleged in this Contempt petition that the injunction order passed in Civil Application No. 3389 of 1995 on 27.7.1995 has been violated by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore, they are guilty of contempt of this Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners prayed for punishing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3. The respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit in reply and has stated that during her life time his wife Parvatibai registered and executed a sale deed dated 11.5.1993 in favour of the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 3-Pirgaonda Shivgonda Patil i.e. the second son of the respondent No. 1 and by subsequent Will deed her share of 2 Annas 8 paise was transferred in favour of Surekha. The wife of respondent No. 3, Parvatibai died in 1995 but during her life time the Will deed was confirmed.
4. As a result of this transfer of share, it is contended by the respondent No. 1 that his first son Raygonda (present respondent No. 2) started insisting that the share of respondent No. 1 be transferred to his branch. At the relevant time, the respondent No. 1 was of 85 years of age and in order to solve family dispute between his two sons, he decided to give 2 Annas 8 paise of his share to the branch of respondent No. 2 and this was consented by respondent No. 2 and 3 as well. By way of family arrangement, the respondent No. 1 thus transferred his 2 Annas 8 Paise share in favour of Sushila, the wife of Raygonda. It is thus clear that 4 Annas 16 paise share which was transferred by the respondent No. 1 and his wife has not been alienated in favour of any third party but in fact it has remained within the family of the respondents.
5. The injunction order passed by this Court was restraining any alienation by himself in favour of any third party, whole of the suit property or part thereof. The alienation made by the respondent No. 1 and his wife, even if they are effected after the injunction order has been passed by this Court, would not in any way amount to breach of the said injunction order. Thus, there is no case of contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is also required to be noted that the petitioners have also moved Civil Application No. 5716 of 1997 to join Sushila, the wife of Raygonda Patil as respondent No. 8 in the pending Second Appeal No. 374 of 1995. Rule has been granted in the said application on 9.4.1999.
6. In the premises, the contempt petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
