Judgment :- 1. This is an unfortunate matter where father and daughter are at a loggerheads and as a consequence, an order of injunction came to be made by this Court in the suit filed by the daughter seeking declatory and other consequential reliefs. The order of injunction was passed on 13.2.1995 in the following terms: “That Mr. A. Tharmalingam, 1-C No. 1147874, Ground Floor, ‘Wisma Tharmalingam’, 32, Jalan Ampang, Kualalampur, Malaysia, represented by Power Agent Subhadra Menon, (2) Mrs. Subhadra Menon, ‘Subrabha’, Ist Floor, Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Madras-600020, and (3) C.S. Hariharan and C.R. Subramaniam, 16/6, College Road, Madras-600006, Defendants/Respondents herein, their men, agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them, be and are hereby restrained by an Injunction till 6.3.1995, from proceeding with the construction of the Multi-storeyed building in the property more fully set out in the Schedule hereunder, or encumbering or dealing with the same in any manner whatsoever”. 2. The order of injunction in clear terms restrains the defendants in the suit, their agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them, from proceeding with the construction of the multi-storeyed building in the property, bearing Plot No. 156, Door No. 44, I Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Madras measuring 138 feet -106 sq. ft. The 3rd defendant was described as C.S. Hariharan and C.H. Subramaniam. The defendant who filed an affidavit in June, 1995 stated that the said Hariharan and Subrama niam were not the Builders but one Premier Investments said to be a partnership firm. Immediately thereafter, an application was filed by the Plaintiff in Application No. 4014/95 to implead Premier Investments as a party. Notice of that application together with the affidavit, was served on Ms. Rama Krishnan who has by her subsequent affidavit stated that she in the proprietrix of the Premier Investments. In the copy of the affidavit which was served on her in November, 1995 the plaintiff had set out at length the nature of the order of injunction which this Court Issued. The said Rama Krishnan had thus been made aware of the order of injunction in the affidavit of the plaintiff the copy of which was served on her in November, 1995, Premier Investments was made a party to the suit in April 1996 as that application 4014/95 had remained pending upto April, 1996. 3. The said Rama Krishnan had thus been made aware of the order of injunction in the affidavit of the plaintiff the copy of which was served on her in November, 1995, Premier Investments was made a party to the suit in April 1996 as that application 4014/95 had remained pending upto April, 1996. 3. Long prior to April, 1996, and even prior to Nov. 1995 she had also been made aware of the order of injunction made by this Court a telegram sent to her by the 1st defendant A. Tharmalingam. The copy of telegram sent by him to the Premier Investments at 17, Balaji Nagar, First Street, Royapettah, Madras-14 as also the letter which he sent on 23rd June, 1995, addressed to the same Premier Investments at the same address, have been filed into Court by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has also sworn to an affidavit regarding the despatch of the said letter and the telegram. After the copies of the letter and telegram were produced into Court and were seen by counsel for Rama Krishnan time was taken for filing further affidavit. She has filed an affidavit through her counsel in which she says that she has not received the telegram. Nothing is said about the letter dated 23.6.1995 addressed to Premier Investments by the 1st defendant. That letter has obviously been received by her. That letter reads under:— “RE: To cease construction works at 44, First Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Madras 20 as ordered by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras. This is with reference to the construction of Multistorey Apartments on the property known as No. 44, First Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Madras-20. I have earlier sent you a telegram followed by letter dated 24th February, 1995 requesting your company to stop immediately all construction works on the subject property as directed by the High Court, Madras. You have ignored this request and I understand that you are still continuing with the construction works. The Solicitors for the plaintiff is now threatening action for contempt of Court unless the construction works are stopped immediately. Therefore, please stop all the construction works immediately in adherence to the Court order to avoid any contempt proceedings by the plaintiff.” 4. You have ignored this request and I understand that you are still continuing with the construction works. The Solicitors for the plaintiff is now threatening action for contempt of Court unless the construction works are stopped immediately. Therefore, please stop all the construction works immediately in adherence to the Court order to avoid any contempt proceedings by the plaintiff.” 4. The 1st defendant had in unequivocal terms directed the Premier Investments to stop all construction works immediately pursuant to the Court order and to avoid any contempt proceedings by the plaintiff. 5. The attitude of the said Rama Krishnan is one of total defiance. She ignored this communication from the last defendant, ignored the contents of the affidavit which discloses the existence of injunction order, a copy of which affidavit sent to her in November, 1995 along with the application filed by the plaintiff to implead her. She chose to proceed with the construction, in violation of the injunction and after having completed the same, filed an affidavit in this Court stating that she completed the construction in March, 1996 and thereafter, she had executed documents in favour of allottees. She has not in her affidavit denied the fact that the original 3rd respondent Hariharan and Subramaniam are none other than her brother and father. The address of all the three is one and the same. Counsel representing all three is also one and the same. The fact that Hariharan and Subramaniam were intimately involved in the transaction concerning this property, is evident from the fact that they are the attestors to the agreement described as “Developmental Agreement” between the 1st defendant and the said Premier Investments. The continued close relationship and involvement of the said Hariharan and Subramaniam in this matter and the fact that they were at all times aware of all that was happening, is also evident from the fact that, notice sent to the Premier Investments was acknowledged by Subramaniam. 6. The persons primarily responsible for the construction which has been put up in defiance of the order of this Court, are clearly the said Rama Krishnan along with Hariharan and Subramaniam. 6. The persons primarily responsible for the construction which has been put up in defiance of the order of this Court, are clearly the said Rama Krishnan along with Hariharan and Subramaniam. Hariharan and Subramaniam though parties to the application, they have not chosen to file any counter-affidavit and none of the allegations made against them have been repudiated, by their counsel who appeared for them and confined his submission only to the interests of Rama Krishnan and did not make any submission as regards the said Hariharan and Subramaniam. 7. The photographs produced in this Court by the plaintiff at the time the suit was filed, would show that the construction at that stage was just above the basement, that pillars were erected and that roof had not been cast, only the projection is covered by slabs. The photographs of the completed construction now produced before Court show the three storeyed building above the ground-floor. It is also stated that there is pent house on the terrace which has been occupied by the second defendant. 8. The fact of the construction having been completed, is not only admitted but is also amply demonstrated by these photographs It is amply clear that there has been violation of the order of this Court injuncting further construction on this building. 9. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that injunction having been thus violated, appropriate action that should only be taken, is to issue a direction to demolish the building so that status quo ante can be restored. Learned counsel submitted that apart from Order 39, Rule 2. A, this Court has ample powers under Section 151, C.P.C. to give such directions as are necessary in the interest of justice, to uphold the dignity of this Court and the need for ensuring compliance with the orders and directions made by this Court from time to time. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah and others (A.I.R. 1975 Madras 270=88 L.W. 285 wherein the Court observed as under:— “In our opinion, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 151, C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah and others (A.I.R. 1975 Madras 270=88 L.W. 285 wherein the Court observed as under:— “In our opinion, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 151, C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our view, the inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice. Even apart from Section 151, we should observe that as a matter of judicial policy, the Court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Courts orders. But in this case it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under Section 151, C.P.C.” That decision of the Court was referred to with approval by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., and another ((1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 622). The decision of this Court was referred to at para 19 and the Rule laid down therein was referred to by the Apex Court as “salutary rule” to be applied and given effect to by this Court.” in para 21 of the judgment. The Supreme Court in that case which was a case where a party had acted in defiance of the orders of the Court, directed attachment of the properties and also directed the offending parties to deposit the entire amount which they had wrongfully obtained by defying the orders of the Court. 10. Learned counsel also referred to the decisions of other High Courts. In the case of M.N. Ramu alias Ramshetty v. Smt. Saraswathamma , a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1991 (1) Kar. 10. Learned counsel also referred to the decisions of other High Courts. In the case of M.N. Ramu alias Ramshetty v. Smt. Saraswathamma , a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1991 (1) Kar. L.J. 333, it was held that provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A will not be a bar for exercise of power under Section 151; the case of Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza , a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court at Kerala reported in 1985 K.L.T. 1010 wherein the Court held that if an order of injunction is violated, the violation has to be dealt with sternly and seriously, for, otherwise, it will undermine the very basis of the Rule of Law; the case of Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sen , a decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta reported in A.I.R. 1986 Calcutta 220, wherein the Court held that the Courts had inherent powers to grant temporary mandatory injunction and restore possession to the person who had been dispossessed in breach of the order of the Court. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent power. The Court emphasised that not withstanding the contents of Order 39 Rule 2-A, the Court is not powerless to grant relief to the aggrieved party in exercise of its inherent power; the case of K.L. Virmani v. III Additional Dist. Judge and others reported in A.I.R. 1992 Allahabad 326, wherein the Court held that proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A can be taken even against defendant who is not present at the time of disobedience nor party to the suit; the case of Chennaru Naghbhusan Rao v. M. Rama Rao reported in A.I.R. 1992 Orissa 76, wherein the Court directed demolition of unauthorised construction which had been put up in breach of the order of injunction issued by the Court. The Court held that mere payment of compensation would not be adequate. 11. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the construction which has been put up in breach of the Courts injunction order, should be demolished. 12. The Court held that mere payment of compensation would not be adequate. 11. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the construction which has been put up in breach of the Courts injunction order, should be demolished. 12. Learned senior counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that his client was a very respectable person who had occupied a prominent position in public life in Malaysia and that he had done all that he could reasonably be expected to do immediately after the order of injunction was made by this Court. He referred to the telegram and the letter sent by the 1st defendant whereby the Builder Premier Investments was instructed not to proceed with the construction and it was made aware of the fact that the Court had passed an order of injunction. He also pointed out that though the proprietrix of the Premier Investments has now denied the receipt of the telegram, the receipt of the letter itself was not denied and that she was at all times made aware of the order made by this Court. It is also submitted that his client is an elderly person of about 70 years and he could not have done anything more than what he did, namely, instruct the Builder not to proceed with the construction. 13. Learned Counsel for the second defendant submitted that the 2nd defendant was a tenant of the property even before the construction came up, that her right as tenant has been recognised in the settlement deed under which the plaintiff claims title, that she was also a power of attorney holder for the plaintiff in which capacity she has entered into an agreement to develop the property and that she, under a bonafide impression that her right to live in this property was not in question, had occupied the pent house which was built for her. Counsel also submitted that the second defendant is an elderly lady aged 69 years, that she suffers from arthirit is as well as Asthma, that she also suffers from slip disc and that she lives alone. Counsel also submitted that she had given an unconditional apology for having violated the orders of this Court and such violation was wholly unintentional. Counsel also submitted that the second defendant is an elderly lady aged 69 years, that she suffers from arthirit is as well as Asthma, that she also suffers from slip disc and that she lives alone. Counsel also submitted that she had given an unconditional apology for having violated the orders of this Court and such violation was wholly unintentional. Counsel further submitted that the order of this Court made in April, 1996 restraining induction of tenants was regarded by her as not being applicable to her as she was already a tenant in the premises even before the construction work commenced. 13 A. As already noticed, Hariharan and Subramaniam though parties to the application, have not chosen to file any counter-affidavit, nor have they chosen to make any submission through Counsel. 14. For Rama Krishnan, learned counsel submitted that she was made a party to the proceedings only in April, 1996 and she could not be possibly bound by anything that might have happened prior to her becoming a party to the suit and that after she became a party to the suit, she had not done anything in breach of the orders of this Court. Counsel stated that Rama Krishnan completed the construction in March, 1996 and had handed over the constructed space to the allotees in April, 1996 before she was made a party and as a Builder, her interest was only in the construction which has already been completed. It is her submission that she had no knowledge of the order of injunction. Counsel, however, did not choose to say anything about the knowledge that Rama Krishnan had acquired when the copy of affidavit filed in support of the application to implead her, was received by her in November, 1995, nor was anything said about the letter dated 23rd June, 1995, the receipt of which has not been denied by the said Rama Krishna in her affidavit. 15. Counsel for defendants-1 and 2 also refers to the fact that as the dispute is between the father and daughter, efforts were being made to reconcile the differences and that was the reason why these applications had been adjourned from time to time, and that as ultimately the differences could not be reconciled, the matter has now to be proceeded with. They have, however, confined their submission to Application No. 4012 of 1995 in which the plaintiff has sought for action against the respondent for having breached the injunction order made by this Court. 16. The fact that the injunction granted by this Court has been breached, is beyond any dispute. The fact that defendants 1 and 2 were bound by the injunction order, is also beyond doubt. The fact that Hariharan and Subramaniam were parties to the proceedings and are bound by the order of injunction, also is beyond dispute. The dispute raised is also by Rama Krishnan Who claims that she is not bound by the order of injunction. 17. The plea of the said Rama Krishnan is wholly untenable, is lacking in bonafides besides being in the light of the records dishonest. The parties who had been impleaded originally Hariharan and Subramanian, are none other than her brother and father. They reside together. They were aware of the order of injunction when it was addressed to them. Rama krishnan also was made aware of the order of injunction when she was directed by the 1st defendant not to proceed with the construction when he wrote to her on 23rd June, 1995 which letter has already been extracted above. That letter also refers to an earlier letter of 7.4.95. In addition, the plaintiff had taken out an application immediately after the first two defendant filed the counter affidavit, to implead Premier Investments and that application together with the affidavit, was served on Rama Krishnan in November, 1995. It was acknowledged by Subramaniam who is none other than the father of the said Rama Krishnan. The affidavit filed in support of that application in para-6 refers to this order of injunction. Rama Krishnan did not choose to apply to this Court for vacating that order or modify the same in spite of such knowledge, but merely chose to ignore the order and to proceed with the construction. Her plea that she was not bound by the orders of this Court until she was made a party, in the circumstances, must be regarded as a hollow plea and bereft of any substance. 18. Any order of injunction passed by this Court would bind not only the parties against whom the order is made but also their men, agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them. 18. Any order of injunction passed by this Court would bind not only the parties against whom the order is made but also their men, agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them. Rama Krishnan had knowledge of the fact that the order of injunction has been made against defendants 1 and 2 who were parties with whom she had entered into an agreement and under whose authority, she had been given possession of the land for putting up construction. She was not the purchaser and she had not acquired independent title to the property. The order made against the 1st defendant was as much binding on her as, it was on the 1st defendant. She cannot claim lack of knowledge as such knowledge had been given to her in more than one way and long prior to the date on which she claims to have completed the construction. Her conduct is one of utter defiance. 19. These observations have, had to be made against her with some reluctance as the affidavit shows that she is aged 29 years and is a married woman. It is very likely that the actions taken in her name, have been done by her brother and father who in order to avoid direct consequences of the order of injunction, appear to have used her name for their own purpose. Nevertheless, being an adult and being a person who is capable of realising the consequences of being a party to legal relationship, she is clearly bound to obey the order of this Court and is answerable for the consequences of disobedience. 20. The attitude of Rama Krishnan is one of non challance as she appears to be under the impression that as the construction is complete and as she has, according to her affidavit, handed over the construction to other persons, who, according to her, have purchased the same, she has no further interest in the building. 21. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is necessary not only to take actions in relation to this building but also to take action as against all the respondents who are parties to this application. 22. It would not be in the interest of any one to demolish a building which has been put up apparently at considerable expenses and which would benefit the person who would ultimately succeed in the suit. 22. It would not be in the interest of any one to demolish a building which has been put up apparently at considerable expenses and which would benefit the person who would ultimately succeed in the suit. Instead of directing demolition, I consider it appropriate to direct appointment of a Receiver, who shall have complete control over the building and who shall not let out any part of the same and shall keep the same vacant. No one shall occupy the building or deal with the same without the express permission of this Court. 23. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in the ground floor, a show room has been opened by a commercial firm. The plaintiff shall furnish the address of that firm. Notice shall issue, with a direction to the occupier to show cause why he should not be immediately evicted from the premises. 24. The pent house is under the occupation of the 2nd defendant. Her conduct must be strongly deprecated as she, at all times was aware of the nature of the proceedings and the consequences of her own action. She was the person who had obtained the power of attorney from the plaintiff and had apparently used the same to enter into a development agreement. She was at all times aware of what has happening on the land. She knew about the construction being in progress despite the order of injunction. She did not move the Court for any action being taken against any person particularly Rama Krishnan who had been acting in defiance of the order of this Court. 25. Learned Counsel for the second defendant pleaded that having regard to the age and ailment of the second defendant, she should be allowed to retain possession of the pent house. I do not consider that as the proper course to be adopted having regard to her knowledge and her part in the various transaction which are under challenge in the suit. She is directed to vacate the premises within a period of six weeks from today. 26. As regards the first defendant, it is clear that though bound by the order of this Court, he has chosen merely to send a telegram and letter. He too must have known about what was happening on the land at all times. The development agreement was executed by him along with the second defendant. 26. As regards the first defendant, it is clear that though bound by the order of this Court, he has chosen merely to send a telegram and letter. He too must have known about what was happening on the land at all times. The development agreement was executed by him along with the second defendant. He had also executed, according to him, several sale deeds most of which are in favour of his own children. It is not the case that he has accounted for the proceeds to his daughter in whose favour he had made a settlement earlier. His counsel says that the 1st defendant had received a sum of Rs. 12,27,000/- by selling undivided interest in the property which sales, according to him, took place before the suit was instituted. 27. Having regard to his conduct and the fact that he had received the aforesaid sum and had failed to act with sufficient vigour to ensure compliance of the order of this Court and having regard to the fact that under the development agreement, he is to have 50% of the built up area, the total area is said to be about 40000 sq. ft., according to the counsel, the first defendant is directed to deposit into Court a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs within four weeks from today. That amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in a Scheduled Bank to the credit of the suit and shall be subject to further orders of this Court. 28. As regard Hariharan and Subramaniam, they are equally guilty of violating the orders of this Court being aware of the order and being parties to the suit, being attestors to the agreement, being the persons who were aware of these proceedings and Subramaniam being also the person who received the notice from this Court which was sent by Premier Investments. It is clear that they have connived with Rama Krishnan to defy the orders of this Court. Counsel for the plaintiff states that he is unable to furnish a list of properties owned by them and also by Rama Krishnan. They are hereby directed to file an affidavit within ten days setting out all properties owned by them both moveables and immovables, after which further orders shall be made as regards respondents Rama Krishnan, Hariharan and Subramaniam. Counsel for the plaintiff states that he is unable to furnish a list of properties owned by them and also by Rama Krishnan. They are hereby directed to file an affidavit within ten days setting out all properties owned by them both moveables and immovables, after which further orders shall be made as regards respondents Rama Krishnan, Hariharan and Subramaniam. In the meantime, there shall be an injunction against them restraining them from alienating any immovable property that may be owned by them. 29. Post this matter for further orders after two weeks. Application No. 4012/95 in C.S. 227/1995: Mr. A.S. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate 63, III Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Madras-600020 is hereby appointed as receiver. Plaintiff shall pay him a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as his initial remuneration. Commissioner to inspect the construction put up by the defendant in violation of the order of injunction and to submit a detailed report to this Court. He shall also suggest measures necessary to protect the property. Report to be submitted within 3 weeks. 23-12-1997 (C.S. No. 227 of 1995):— II/1. Affidavits of Mrs. Rama Krishnan, C.H. Subramanian and C.S. Hariharan have been filed. Mrs. Rama Krishnan has stated that she owns 1600 sq. ft. of constructed area proportionate undivided share in the property bearing Door No. 16/9 College Road, Madras-6 of value Rs. 5,00,000/- jewels consisting of about 100 sovereigns of value of Rs. 4,50,000/- and investment in Premier Investments having its Office at No. 17, Balaji Nagar First Street, Royapettah, Madras-14 which is of the value of Rs. 3,00,000/- Excepting the Jewels the other properties mentioned by her in the affidavit shall stand attached. II/2. In his affidavit C.H. Subramaniam has stated that he has investments in shares of value Rs. 4,00,000/- share capital in the firm C.S. Hariharan Company of which he is a partner to the value of Rs. 3,00,000/- and advances by way of investments made by him of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- His share capital and his investments in shares shall stand attached. II/3. In the affidavit, C.H. Hariharan has stated that he owns 1200/sq. ft. of constructed area, proportionate undivided share in the property bearing Door No. 16/1 College Road, Madras-6 of value of Rs. 4,00,000/- investments in share of value of Rs. 3,00,000/- and advances by way of investments and loans Rs. II/3. In the affidavit, C.H. Hariharan has stated that he owns 1200/sq. ft. of constructed area, proportionate undivided share in the property bearing Door No. 16/1 College Road, Madras-6 of value of Rs. 4,00,000/- investments in share of value of Rs. 3,00,000/- and advances by way of investments and loans Rs. 1,00,000/- The immovable property owned by C.H. Hariharan shall stand attached. II/4. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he has issued notice to the present occupants of a portion of the premises. Notice shall isssue to the occupants to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Notice returnable by 8.1.1997. Post for further orders on 8.1.97.