Jugan K. Mehta vs S.S. Gulati And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 983 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This contempt petition filed by the original plaintiff is based on the alleged violation of the ex parte order of status quo of this Court dated 2nd April, 2002 which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 25th August, 2003 passed after hearing both sides and which order is now pending in appeal before the Division Bench. The suit was inter alia for partition and averred that the two brothers of the plaintiff (who is the married sister) i.e. Defendant No. 1 Shri Sham Sunder Gulati, defendant No. 3 Shri Raj Kumar Gulati and defendant No. 4 Shri Chintu Gulati who are legal representatives of late Prakash Gulati, another brother of the plaintiff had sold the suit property at 31, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi to defendant No. 7- Smt. Neelam Sablok in violation of the plaintiff's rights.

2. It is claimed that the suit property has been demolished violating the order of status quo. The demolition is averred to be without any valid sanction and permission. It is also stated that if respondents are allowed to continue rebuilding of suit premises it would result in undue harassment and irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

3. The respondents/defendants have denied the commission of any contempt and inter alia pleaded that the petitioner is a married daughter who had executed along with the other sisters an affidavit on 18th August, 1988 to permit mutation of property in favor of her brothers pursuant to a registered will made by the mother and father of the petitioner on 16th April, 1981, and is now for ulterior motives seeking to stake an unlawful and belated claim in respect of the suit property. It was also alleged that the frivolous claims were raised 20 years after the father's death in 1982 and 10 years after the mother's death in 1992. The defendant No. 7/respondent No. 4 was sold this property by the brothers of the plaintiff on 11th October, 2000 by a registered sale deed and even the plaint averred that the defendant No. 7 had been transferred the property.

4. It is relevant to extract the relevant portions of the order dated 2nd April, 2002 and 25th August, 2003 which are said to be violated and read as under:

Order dated 02-04-2002

"........... I Accordingly direct the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the title and possession of the premises as of today and the parties are restrained from alienating, selling, transferring or creating third party interest in the property No. 6909/31, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi till the next date. The provision of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied with."

Order dated 25-8-2003

"....... The question whether the plaintiff is in possession of any portion of the property or not is, therefore, can be decided only after evidence. The affidavit which have been relied upon on behalf of the defendant have been strongly disputed on behalf of the plaintiff and it is alleged that they are forged and fabricated documents."

......

"It is the case of the defendant that the property has been transferred in 2000 to defendant No. 7, who is in possession of the premises. The ex parte ad interim injunction order which was granted on 02.4.2004 simply required the parties to maintain status quo qua the possession and the title and restrained the defendants from further alienation or transfer or creating of third party interest in the property. If defendant no. 7 claimed the transfer of the property by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 and his brother Prakash Chand Gulati, it would not be affected by that order. But any further transfer, alienation of the title or parting with possession of the property will not be permissible. Copy of the registered sale deed has been placed on record. Except the plaintiff, all other heirs of late Mangal Sain Gulati who have been arrayed as defendants No. 1 to 6 have no objection to the Will and the sale of the property."

.......

"......in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find that a prima facie case is made out in favor of grant of interlocutory injunction order in terms of the order which was passed on 2.4.2002 with slight modification that in case defendant no.7 wants to transfer the title or possession of the property further, as claimed by her, she would seek prior permission from the court."

5. Thus it is clear that the ex-parte order of 2nd April, 2002 only granted status quo in respect of the title and possession of the premises as of 2nd April, 2002 and the parties were restrained from alienating, selling or transferring or creating third party rights in the suit property. In so far as rights of the defendant No.7/respondent No. 4 on 2nd April, 2002 are concerned there is a registered Sale Deed dated 11th October, 2000 and the plaintiff has not been able to cast any reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the sale deed and consequently the presumption prima facie is that the possession has passed pursuant to the said sale deed to the respondent No. 7.

6. Furthermore, the order dated 25th August, 2003 has clearly declined to adjudicate whether the plaintiff is in possession without recording of evidence. Thus there is no finding today in the detailed order dated 25th August, 2003 that the plaintiff is in possession. The order dated 25.8.2003 also held that ex-parte ad-interim injunction similarly required status quo qua possession and restrained further alienation of property. Furthermore the order of 25th August, 2003 itself modifies the order dated 2nd April, 2002 to the effect that in case the respondent No. 7 further wants to transfer the title or possession of the property further she would require prior permission from the court. This order of 25th August, 2003 thus itself establishes the possession of defendant No. 7. The counsel for defendant No. 7/respondent No. 4 Shri Kher has in any event categorically stated that he will neither transfer or alienate the property without leave of the Court.

7. Consequently, no contempt of the order dated 2nd April, 2002 and 25th August, 2003 is made out even on a plain reading of the orders of this Court and on the contrary the contents of the pleading clearly demonstrate that the contempt petition is baseless and deserves to be dismissed.

8. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.