Telangana High Court

A. Vijay Raj Soni vs Bedley Sujay Kumar Died Per Lrs on 27 March, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

       THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
                 CONTEMPT CASE No.2457 of 2024

ORDER:

This Contempt case is filed by the petitioner-appellant under Section

10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for willfully

disobeying and committing contempt of the court orders dated 28.04.2024 in

CCCA MP No.184 of 2014 in CCCA No.41 of 2014 as restored in CCCA MP

No.576 of 2014 by order dated 08.10.2015.

2. Heard Ms. Talat Madiha, learned counsel representing Sri S.J.A.

Nadeem, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri D. Raghavendar

Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aggrieved by

the judgment and decree dated 11.02. 2014 in O.S. No.67 of 2002 on the file

of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief judge, CCC Secunderabad,

the petitioner preferred appeal in CCCA No.41 of 2014 on the file of this

court. This Court granted interim orders on 28.04.2014 in CCCA MP No.184

of 2014 restraining the deceased respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3

from transferring or alienating or creating any third party rights or interest

over the suit schedule property covered in O.S. No.67 of 2002, and further

directed both parties to maintain status quo until further orders. Since the

Dr.GRR,J

inception of the suit, there was an injunction in favour of the plaintiff against

the respondents herein with regard to possession. Admittedly, the appellant

was in possession of the subject property prior to the suit and was continuing

the possession. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed vacate stay petition in

CCCA MP No.457 of 2014. The same was allowed by order dated

13.11.2014. Immediately, the petitioner-appellant filed CCCA MP No.576 of

2014 to recall the ex parte order passed in CCCAMP No.457 of 2014. The

High Court, after hearing both the counsel allowed the recall petition in

CCCAMP No.576 of 2014 by order dated 08.10.2015 and restored the

original injunction order dated 08.04.2014 in CCCA MP No.184 of 2014 in

favour of the appellant.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that while the above injunction

order was subsisting against the respondents from alienating the property and

to maintain status quo regarding possession of the petitioner-appellant, the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 after the death of the respondent No.1 on 27.08.2018

executed a registered sale deed dated 28.05.2019 bearing document No.1800

of 2019 in favour of third parties, by name, Mr. Gaddam Satish Manohar and

Mr. Nagesh. The above persons were not bonafide purchasers as they

deliberately purchased the property knowing fully-well about the injunction

order against the respondents from alienating or creating third party rights.

As such, a contempt petition was filed earlier by the petitioner-appellant vide

Dr.GRR,J

CC No.929 of 2019 and this Court punished the contemnor vide orders dated

03.02.2023. In consequence of the same, boring grudge over the petitioner,

the said G. Satish Manohar attempted to dispossess the petitioner by using

illegal force in the month of July 2023. The petitioner lodged a police

complaint which was registered as Crime No.144 of 2023 dated 08.07.2023

under Sections 427, 383, 380, 109 read with 34 IPC, but the same was closed

on 14.07.2023 without investigation. As such, the petitioner filed a protest

petition.

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier also by roping the

Municipal Corporation, G. Satish Manohar tried to demolish the subject

property with an oblique motive to take over possession from the petitioner.

The petitioner filed WP No.31827 of 2022, when the GHMC made an attempt

to demolish the property under the guise that the building was in dilapidated

condition contrary to the fact that there was no building and the premises was

of ground floor. However, taking lieu from the orders in WP No.31827 of

2022, another notice was got issued by the GHMC, assailing which WP

No.5454 of 2023 was filed and the same was pending. In the said writ

petition, G. Satish Manohar filed an implead petition on the basis of the sale

deed.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on

22.10.2023, during Dasara vacations to the courts, a group of persons along

Dr.GRR,J

with JCB machines came and demolished the compound wall, ransacked the

furniture, looted the electronic appliances worth of Rs.25,00,000/-, snatched

away the mobile phones of the watchman and the son of the petitioner. On the

complaint given by them, police registered Crime No.232 of 2023 under

Sections 427, 383, 380, 109 read with 34 IPC and after few days, without

investigation, the police closed the said complaint.

3.4. She further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 alienated the

property by willfully violating and disobeying the court orders and committed

contempt. The sale deed executed by them was a void and sham document

and would not convey any right or title in favour of third parties nor the same

was binding on the petitioner. The said sale deed was also hit by Section 52

of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents with a criminal intention

were trying to dispossess the petitioner from the above property in an illegal

manner by way of criminal intimidation and threat. On 29.06.2019, the

purchaser sent three persons to the shop of the petitioner, who also threatened

the petitioner with dire consequences forcing the petitioner to settle the matter

with Mr. Satish Manohar. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police,

Marredpally, the petitioner filed WP No.30579 of 2023 and the same was

pending and prayed to punish the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

contended that the respondent had already sold the property vide registered

Dr.GRR,J

sale deed dated 28.05.2019 in favour of third parties. They were no longer

involved with the property. The respondents were not having any knowledge

of any of the alleged actions committed by third parties. The petitioner with a

sinister motive was dragging the respondents into the present proceedings to

pressurize them to meet his illegal demands. The respondent No.2 was a

widow. Her husband passed away during the pendency of the court

proceedings. The petitioner was enjoying the property for the past 20 years

without paying rent. The respondent No.2 was residing with her old aged

parents in their house. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 got married and settled

abroad. They were not involved in any actions that violated the orders of the

court and prayed to dismiss the contempt case filed by the petitioner against

them.

5. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioner was running an office cum

godown under the name and style of "M/s. Jains Marketing Distribution"

dealing in electrical appliances of various companies. The said godown cum

office was situated in premises bearing Municipal No.10-2-292, West

Marredpally, Secunderabad. The said property was taken on lease by him in

1990 from the respondent No.1 and it was alleged that later the landlord of the

said property entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. The

petitioner contended that he was in the capacity of the permissive possessor of

Dr.GRR,J

the property having paid the entire sale consideration and filed the suit for

specific performance vide O.S. No.67 of 2002. The respondent No.1-vendor

filed O.S. No.50 of 2002 for partition. Both the suits were decided by a

common judgment and decree passed on 11.02.2014, wherein the suit for

partition was decreed and the suit for specific performance was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred CCCA No.41 of 2014

and CCCA No.131 of 2014. Interim orders were passed in the said CCCAs

directing the respondents not to alienate the subject property. During the

pendency of appeal, the respondent No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought

on record as respondent Nos.2 to 4 and they executed a registered sale deed

bearing document No.1800 of 2019 dated 28.05.2019 in favour of one G.

Satish Manohar and another. As such, a contempt case was filed by the

petitioner herein earlier vide CC No.929 of 2019 and in the said petition, this

Court punished the contemnor vide orders dated 03.02.2023.