Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 227 (ALL)

Jawahar Lal v. Santosh and Others

2014-01-18

KRISHNA MURARI

body2014
Krishna Murari,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 16.2.2012 passed in Second Appeal no. 129 of 2012. Relevant facts for the purpose of the case are as under : 3. Suit filed by Jawahar Lal, the applicant herein for specific performance of contract of an agreement to sell dated 10.11.1980 executed by one Smt. Nanhi Devi (since deceased and now represented by opposite parties no. 7 to 9 herein) in his favour was decreed by the civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2010. Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed on 14.12.2011, against which second appeal no. 129 of 2012 was preferred which was disposed of on 16.2.2012 on the following terms : "Accordingly, it is directed that within two months amount of Rs. Rs.1,07000/- (the balance loan along with interest) shall be deposited in the bank by the plaintiff and Rs.93,000/- and balance sale consideration of Rs.22,500/-, if not, already deposited shall positively be deposited before the trial court/executing court within two months. On such deposit being made the executing court shall forthwith execute the sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff and possession shall immediately be delivered and thereafter the balance sale consideration and the amount of Rs.93000/- shall immediately be paid to the defendants appellants. In case the loan and the interest is more than Rs.1,07000/- still the same should be cleared by the plaintiff respondent and additional amount if any shall not be adjustable in the amount of Rs.93000/- required to be deposited by the plaintiff respondent. 4. Accordingly, decree passed by the courts below is substantially affirmed, however, it is varied only to the extent of payment of additional amount of Rs. 2 lacs as above for which on the suggestion of the Court learned counsel for respondent has agreed. Second appeal is accordingly disposed of/decided." 5. The applicant has alleged in the affidavit that the obligation imposed upon him in the judgement and order of this Court for making deposit was discharged by him and thereafter, the trial court/executing court executed the registered sale deed in his favour on 4.7.2012. Second appeal is accordingly disposed of/decided." 5. The applicant has alleged in the affidavit that the obligation imposed upon him in the judgement and order of this Court for making deposit was discharged by him and thereafter, the trial court/executing court executed the registered sale deed in his favour on 4.7.2012. He has further alleged that thereafter the executing court ordered for providing police force for delivery of physical possession and the said proceedings were duly completed and 'Dakhalnama' was executed in favour of the applicant, the copy of the Amin's report and 'Dakhalnama' dated 13.12.2012 has been filed as annexure no. 16 to the affidavit. It has also been categorically alleged in paragraph 24 of the affidavit that actual physical exclusive possession of the subject matter of the dispute was duly handed over to the applicant by the executing court. 6. Contempt application has been filed on the allegation that after execution of the sale deed by the executing court and delivery of actual possession of the disputed land to the applicant in compliance of the final judgment and order dated 16.2.2012 passed by this Court, opposite parties no. 1 to 6, who were lis pendence vendees, having purchased the property by means of registered sale deed dated 13.2.2012 from opposite parties no. 7 to 9 have taken unlawful forcible possession of the disputed plot no. 277 on 29.12.2012 which amounts to an alarming willful contempt of this Court. 7. The specific allegation is that the opposite parties no. 1 to 6 by taking forcible possession of plot no. 277 have willfully violated the order of this Court and thus they are in contempt. 8. However, a perusal of the agreement to sell dated 10.11.1980 goes to show that agreement was in respect of half of total area 7.37 acres consisting of plot no. 183 area 6.43, plot no. 183M area 0.38 and plot no. 338 area 0.56. The suit was decreed by the trial court in respect of the said plots which were subject of the agreement to sell. The decree was affirmed by this court with slight variation in respect of the sale consideration and certain loan amount. The sale deed executed by the executing court in favour of the applicant in pursuance of the execution of the decree also goes to show that it was in respect of plot no. 183 area 6.43, plot no. The decree was affirmed by this court with slight variation in respect of the sale consideration and certain loan amount. The sale deed executed by the executing court in favour of the applicant in pursuance of the execution of the decree also goes to show that it was in respect of plot no. 183 area 6.43, plot no. 183M area 0.38 and plot no. 338 area 0.56. The sale deed was executed in respect of half area of plot nos. 183, 183M and 338 total area 7.37 acres. Amin report and 'Dakhalnama' also goes to show that possession was delivered to the applicant over half area of the aforesaid three plots only. It appears that plot no. 227 area 1.277 hectare was transferred by the opposite party no. 7 in favour of the opposite parties no. 1 to 6 vide sale deed dated 13.2.2012 (filed as annexure-8 to the affidavit) and the dispute between the parties in respect of mutation on the basis of the said sale deed is pending. 9. Apart from the question, whether dispossession of a decree-holder, who is put in possession over a property, after the proceedings are over by a transferee pendenti lite who has not been impleaded as a party at any stage of the proceedings, can tantamount to contempt is very doubtful inasmuch as if this proposition is accepted then any such act even after lapse of eternity of the conclusion of the proceedings will also amount to contempt and thus does not appear to be acceptable proposition. 10. Further in the present case, the applicant has failed to establish that the plot over which dispossession is alleged was a part of the suit property and subject matter of dispute in respect of which decree was passed and executed. Neither it has been suggested nor there is any material on record to indicate that disputed plot no. 227 has been carved out from the aforesaid three plots, which was subject matter of suit between the parties nor there is any material to even remotely indicate that plot no. 277 was subject matter of dispute or part of said property. 11. 227 has been carved out from the aforesaid three plots, which was subject matter of suit between the parties nor there is any material to even remotely indicate that plot no. 277 was subject matter of dispute or part of said property. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, various principles of law enunciated by pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court referred to in the pleadings of the applicant are of no consequence, hence, except for overburdening the judgment no useful purpose would be served by referring to them. 12. The contempt application has simply been filed to pressurise the opposite party. It is a misconceived application and accordingly stands dismissed. ___________