JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act read with under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for their willful breech of undertaking made in C.S.No.256 of 2018 dated 09.07.2018.) 1. Heard arguments for about forty five minutes advanced by Mr.S.Ayyadurai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contempt petitioner. 2. As a matter of fact, statutory notice had not been directed to the respondents, but before issuing statutory notice, by noting dated 15.06.2022, this Court had directed private notice to the respondents and on such notice being received, the learned counsels had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and counter affidavit have also been filed. 3. This Contempt Petition has been filed stating that there has been willful disobedience of order dated 09.07.2018 in C.S.No.256 of 2018. That particular civil suit had been filed by one of the daughter of Mr.Jeppiaar, who was quite an active individual, both in politics and in business field. He had built up substantial wealth including movable and immovable properties and had also incorporated various private limited companies and established a few educational institutions. 4. Naturally, on his death, the legal representatives namely, his widow and daughters wanted a share in the property and not being satisfied with what had been given to them, the propensity to look into what the other person gained or rather was able to take away was a source of continuous acrimonies relationship among the family members. It was in such circumstances that C.S.No.256 of 2018 had been filed by one of the daughters. The defendants in that particular suit were the mother and other daughters, including the present petitioner who was shown as the 5th defendant. There was also another partnership firm which was impleaded as the 6th defendant and the relief sought in that particular suit was for declaration that the 6th defendant, partnership firm stood dissolved on the death of the partner, Mr.Jeppiaar, who died on 18.06.2016 and for consequential reliefs owing to such dissolution. 5. There was also another partnership firm which was impleaded as the 6th defendant and the relief sought in that particular suit was for declaration that the 6th defendant, partnership firm stood dissolved on the death of the partner, Mr.Jeppiaar, who died on 18.06.2016 and for consequential reliefs owing to such dissolution. 5. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 25.06.2018 was presented to the Court, which gave an impression that the issues among the plaintiff and the defendants, not only with respect to the dissolution of the 6th defendant, but also with respect to discharge of loans which were mounting and also division of the available properties into five equal parts would be undertaken. That task should be done by all the parties. The said MoU was recorded by this Court on 09.07.2018. 6. The present petitioner, did not accept to such MoU and it was stated by the learned Senior Counsel at that time, that clauses (j) (k) and (l) alone would be binding on her and that she would be abide by those clauses only, and that other clauses would not be binding on her. Taking into consideration that particular representation, the Court proceeded to record the MoU, giving such exception to the present petitioner herein with respect to the majority of clauses except (j) (k) and (l). A decree was also passed in accordance with the MoU. It was genuinely felt that the matters had been come to an amicable end on the filing of the MoU and passing of a decree. 7. But it has since transpired, that it did not do so. 8. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out various terms quite apart from clauses (j) (k) and (l) and was quite agitated over clause (f) under which the mother who filed a suit in O.S.No.179 of 2017 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner herein not to enter into the educational properties, had agreed to withdraw the said suit, but had not withdrawn the same. It was complained that the mother further crossed the line and filed O.S.No.134 of 2021 against the petitioner herein seeking further permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from entering into the properties, where the mother was in possession, either physically or otherwise. This appears to have caused much grievance to the petitioner herein. 9. It was complained that the mother further crossed the line and filed O.S.No.134 of 2021 against the petitioner herein seeking further permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from entering into the properties, where the mother was in possession, either physically or otherwise. This appears to have caused much grievance to the petitioner herein. 9. It is also stated that a final decree application had been filed by the mother in A.Nos.3070 of 2020 and 3071 of 2020. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, that unfortunately the mother had not included all the properties which are available for partition in those applications. When this Court queried as to why the petitioner herein as a respondent in the said application could not have filed a separate application seeking to include property, which had been so left out, the learned Senior Counsel pleaded helplessness and ignorance of details of such properties and stated that the present petitioner was not in a position to give complete details of the properties which had been left out, but was still equally assertive with the allegation that there were properties, which had been left out. 10. It must be pointed out that the petitioner must give the necessary details of such other properties which, according to her, had been left out in A.Nos.3070 and 3071 of 2020. 11. I am informed that an Advocate Commissioner had also been appointed in the said application to sell the properties and to discharge the outstanding loan amount and thereafter divide the remainder of the properties among to the sharers, which included the present petitioner, who is entitled to an undivided 1/5th share. 12. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner would not be given such undivided 1/5th share after the loans and other outstandings are discharged. It is therefore contended on behalf of the respondents that the properties will have to be sold in the first place, then the loan must be discharged and then the division of the properties can be under taken. It is also stated that as against that particular order, the present petitioner had filed an Original Side Appeal and the Division Bench had also granted stay of selling the properties. It is also contended that the Government, in the meanwhile, had entered into the picture and has also claimed a vested right over the properties. It is also stated that as against that particular order, the present petitioner had filed an Original Side Appeal and the Division Bench had also granted stay of selling the properties. It is also contended that the Government, in the meanwhile, had entered into the picture and has also claimed a vested right over the properties. These issues are the subject matter of other proceedings and it may not be proper on my part to even examine or mention the credentials of the respective parties, with respect to those proceedings. 13. I am informed that A.Nos.3070 and 3071 of 2020 are still pending for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court. In effect, it is seen that the mother had taken steps by filing A.Nos.3070 and 3071 of 2020 and the petitioner herein had been impleaded as one of the respondents. I am confident that if ever she takes any step, she would not be denied an opportunity to present her case before that particular Court. 14. A further source of grievance raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that though there was an attempt made to reconcile the entire dispute and a mediator had also been appointed, the process failed and it is complained by the learned Senior Counsel, that it failed only owing to the attitude of the respondents. 15. It is also stated that thereafter Crl.O.P.No.24631 of 2017 had been filed seeking interference with further proceedings of a police complaint given by the petitioner herein. During the course of hearing that petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court had appointed a former Judge to examine the possibility of an amicable settlement being brought about. It is stated that such effort also failed. As a matter of fact, I am informed that the learned Judge had also taken an effort to ensure that the present petitioner had a one to one meeting with her mother, but that effort also failed. 16. In effect, this is a case were the parties keep blaming each other. They must now realize that outstandings are being multiplied, and the Government has now sought a vested interest on the properties. 17. 16. In effect, this is a case were the parties keep blaming each other. They must now realize that outstandings are being multiplied, and the Government has now sought a vested interest on the properties. 17. It would only be prudent for the parties to concentrate on those issues namely, the settlement of loans outstanding and the issues which the Government have now raised, rather than getting involved in an acrimonious litigation among themselves. 18. One such further litigation appears to this particular petition filed, taking advantage of Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is complained that the conduct of the respondents particularly, the mother has been so blatant that it should be termed as a contempt of the undertaking given before this Court in the MoU, which had been recorded and a decreed had been passed. 19. However, the mother can only file an application. She had filed A.Nos.3070 and 3071 of 2020. If there are any defects in the said application and if any, properties had been left out then in the said application since each party is interested in ensuring that a final decree is passed in terms of the MoU, then nothing prevents the respondents including the petitioner herein from pointing out the properties, which have been left out. A duty is cast on the present petitioner to so point out. Pleading ignorance of the details of such properties and complaining that properties had been left out, but not giving details of which properties had left out, would not be advantageous to the petitioner herein to press further the present Contempt Petition. 20. The fact that the mother did not withdraw the earlier suit which was pending in O.S.No.179 of 2017, again cannot be insisted upon by this petitioner, since the present petitioner had taken a conscious decision falling back only on clauses (j) (k) and (l) very specifically. 21. A perusal of said clauses (j) (k) and (l) would show that the present petitioner had taken interest in confirming to the MoU, only to the extent to which she would financially and otherwise gain. Clause (j) was with respect to division of properties after settling of the loan. Clause (k) was with respect to the division of properties and giving a share to the present petitioner. Clause (j) was with respect to division of properties after settling of the loan. Clause (k) was with respect to the division of properties and giving a share to the present petitioner. Clause (l) was with respect to a compromise being recorded and a decree being passed on division of asserts. 22. Thus, the petitioner herein had, regarded the MoU not as a document of understanding but as a document of pure self gain of division of properties either to the disadvantage of others or to the advantage of herself. Now ultimately, the parties now face a situation where they will have to contend with both the creditors / banks and the Government. The parties have walked into such a situation, with their eyes open. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner in this Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 23. There cannot be a contempt when application has been filed seeking final decree. There cannot be a contempt when the petitioner herein had not come forward to disclose the properties, which according to her have been left out. 24. There cannot be a contempt of a clause to which the present petitioner had not agreed namely, withdrawal of the suit instituted by the mother against her. There cannot be a contempt when Government had stepped in and claimed vested right in the properties, which could be probably sold to settle the creditors. There cannot be contempt when efforts to bring the property to sell, were frowned upon by the petitioner by stating that such efforts were collusive acts. 25. The petitioner is always at liberty to produce purchasers for the properties and to take such effort by filing a final decree application in manner known to law. All the parties stand on an equal footing. It must also be pointed out that as a defendant in the suit, the petitioner must also file a written statement paying necessary Court fees and then gain a right to file an application for final decree. She had not taken those steps. 26. Therefore, the Contempt Petition would not lie. The same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Sub.Appl.No.230 of 2022 is closed.