Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1841 (MAD)

P. Mahaveerchand v. S. Hemalatha

2014-07-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The Contempt Appeal, in Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2014, has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, made in Sub Application No.79 of 2013, in Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013. 3. The Contempt Appeal, in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2014, has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, made in Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013. 4. The Contempt Petition, in Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013, had been filed to punish the respondents therein, including the appellants in the present contempt appeal, for disobeying the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this court, on 15.11.2006, in O.A.No.875 of 2006, in C.S.No.318 of 2002. 5. It had been stated that, on 15.11.2006, an order had been passed directing the parties concerned to maintain status quo, with regard to the schedule mentioned property, described in the suit, in C.S.No.318 of 2002. However, it had been alleged that the respondents in the contempt petition had disobeyed the order, dated 15.11.2006 and therefore, they were liable to be punished in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. 6. It had also been alleged that, in spite of the order passed on 15.11.2006, a sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, had been executed, by the first respondent in the Contempt Petition, in favour of the second respondent therein and that the said sale deed had been registered as Document No.744 of 2012, at the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. Therefore, a Sub Application, in Sub Application No.79 of 2013, had been filed in the Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013 to declare the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, as null and void and to communicate the same to the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, for the cancellation of the said sale deed. An order had been passed by the learned single Judge of this court, on 11.4.2014, holding that the sale deed had been executed contrary to the interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 15.11.2006 and therefore, the first respondent in the contempt petition had been directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-, to the petitioner in the contempt petition, as he was guilty of committing contempt. The learned single Judge had further held that the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, cannot be held to be valid, as it had been executed in spite of the interim order of status quo granted by the court, by its order, dated 15.11.2006. Therefore, the learned single Judge had declared the said sale deed as null and void and he had further directed the Sub Registrar concerned to enter the same in the appropriate register, at the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the present contempt appeals had been filed by the appellants, who were the second and the third respondents in the contempt petition, in Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, in the Sub Application, in Sub Application No.79 of 2013, is perse invalid and non est in the eye of law, as the said order is contrary to the provisions of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. He had further submitted that the Contempt Petition is barred by law, as the contempt action had been initiated against the appellants herein beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the provisions of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that the appellants had not been aware of the order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge with regard to the schedule mentioned property. Further, the second appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question, for a valid consideration. As such, the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, ought to have been held to be valid in the eye of law. Even if the learned single Judge had found that the first respondent in the contempt petition had committed contempt, by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this court on 15.11.2006 and even though he had suffered the punishment imposed on him, it cannot be said that the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, is invalid in the eye of law. 9. It had been further submitted that the suit filed by P. Yamuna Mohan, before this court, in C.S.No.318 of 2002, had been transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai, and it had been renumbered as O.S.No.12098 of 2010. 9. It had been further submitted that the suit filed by P. Yamuna Mohan, before this court, in C.S.No.318 of 2002, had been transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai, and it had been renumbered as O.S.No.12098 of 2010. In such circumstances, when the rights of the appellants had crystalised in the form of a preliminary decree, declaring their rights and entitlement, pursuant to which a judgment and decree, dated 22.10.2013, had been passed, and allocation by way of final decree proceedings had taken place declaring 1/5th share in the suit schedule mentioned property, in favour of the vendor of the second appellant, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, declaring the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, as null and void and consequently, issuing a direction to the Sub Registrar concerned, to enter the same in the register, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. Shanti Sarup Gupta Vs. Anjuman Isnai Ashria, AIR 1982 SC 1461 Thompson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. And another, 2013(2) CTC 104 10. Per contra, Mr. Subba Reddy the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, declaring the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, as null and void, cannot be said to be a valid order, especially, in view of the fact that the property in question had been sold to a third party to the proceedings, who had no knowledge of the interim order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge and when the purchaser had purchased the property for a valid consideration, without having knowledge of the proceedings pending in the court of law. He had further submitted that, at present, an amicable settlement is being worked out, amongst the parties concerned, to make it possible for the purchaser of the property to enjoy the same in a better manner. While so, the second respondent, who had sold his share of the property in question, is attempting to prevent the conclusion of the settlement, by making unnecessary and unsustainable demands. While so, the second respondent, who had sold his share of the property in question, is attempting to prevent the conclusion of the settlement, by making unnecessary and unsustainable demands. Having suffered the punishment in the contempt petition, the second respondent in the present contempt appeals, who had been found guilty of committing contempt, cannot be permitted to interfere in the settlement sought to be arrived at amongst the parties concerned. Further, due to the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014, the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, had been declared to be null and void. In effect, the purchasers of the property in question, who had paid a substantial sum of about 14 crores, would stand to lose the said amount, and the second respondent, who is guilty of committing contempt, would be allowed to retain the property in question and to keep the money paid to him as consideration, by the purchaser of the property. 11. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the learned single Judge had rightly held that the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, is null and void. The said sale deed had been executed when an order of status quo, with regard to the property in question, was in force. Even though the purchaser of the property may not have had the knowledge of the said order, the sale of the property in question cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. He had further submitted that the second respondent is ready and willing to return the amount paid by the purchaser, who is the appellant in the present contempt appeal. Further, as the second respondent had been found to be guilty of committing contempt, he had paid the amount of Rs.10,000/-to the contempt petitioner who is the first respondent herein as per the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014. As such, the present contempt appeals are liable to be dismissed, as they are devoid of merits. 12. Further, as the second respondent had been found to be guilty of committing contempt, he had paid the amount of Rs.10,000/-to the contempt petitioner who is the first respondent herein as per the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 11.4.2014. As such, the present contempt appeals are liable to be dismissed, as they are devoid of merits. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as the respondents in the above contempt appeals and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the learned single Judge had set aside the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, by his order, dated 11.4.2014, holding that the second respondent in the present contempt appeals is deemed to have had knowledge of the order of status quo passed on 15.11.2006. While so, it was not open to the second respondent to deal with the property in question, by executing a sale deed in favour of the appellant. 13. It is also noted that the second respondent had been found guilty of committing contempt of court, by wilfully disobeying the order passed on 15.11.2006. The second respondent had been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-to the contempt petitioner, in Contempt Petition No.333 of 2013. The said amount had also been paid by the second respondent, as per the direction issued by the learned single Judge. However, the learned single Judge had passed a further order declaring the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, as null and void. 14. It is also noted that the purchaser, who is the appellant in the present contempt appeals, had no knowledge of the interim order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge on 15.11.2006. There is nothing on record to show that the purchaser, who had purchased the property in question, for a valid consideration, had knowledge of the interim order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge. It is further noted that the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 11.4.2014, declaring the sale deed as null and void, using his power of discretion, after having found the second respondent in the present contempt appeals guilty of having committed contempt. It is further noted that the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 11.4.2014, declaring the sale deed as null and void, using his power of discretion, after having found the second respondent in the present contempt appeals guilty of having committed contempt. However, we find that the said order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the purchaser of the property in question, the appellant herein, had purchased the property for a valid consideration, without having any knowledge of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. In fact, by the order passed by the learned single Judge, declaring the sale deed as null and void, the second respondent, who had been found to be guilty of committing contempt, gets back the land, which he had sold to the appellant, and he is also allowed to retain the amount of nearly 14 crores paid by the purchaser. Further, the second respondent, the vendor of the property in question, had not disputed the fact that he had sold only his share of the property to the purchaser, for a valid consideration. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, in so far as it relates to the declaration, declaring the sale deed, dated 25.6.2012, as null and void, and the further direction to the Office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, to enter the same in the register concerned. Accordingly, the above contempt appeals stands allowed, to the extent noted above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2014 are closed.