JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks to punish the respondent for not complying with the orders of this Court dated 09.02.2018 made in A.Nos.587 of 2013, 3302, 3303 & 4824 of 2016 and 1728 of 2017 in C.S.No.673 of 2012. 2. The suit in C.S.No.673 of 2012 was filed by the two of the members of the 6th defendant in the suit namely, Chennai Vaal Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam (Reg.No.45 of 1984), seeking to remove the Office bearers, to appoint new Office bearers and framing a scheme of management, for managing the Sangam and for other reliefs. Pending the said suit, various applications were filed and since the term of the Office of the existing Office bearers had expired, A.Nos.3302 and 3303 of 2016 were filed, seeking to appoint a Commissioner to conduct election for the Sangam and for production of the bank statements. By order dated 12.12.2017, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed directing him to conduct the elections. 3. An appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 09.01.2018. The Commissioner appointed by the Court had conducted the election and filed his report. The report of the Commissioner was accepted and the new Office bearers were permitted to assume Office. The 1st respondent in the applications namely, L.M.Krishnasamy Nadar, who was the President of the Society was directed to handover charge of the Society to the newly elected Office bearers by 28.02.2018. Since possession and documents relating to the properties of the Sangam were not handed over, the counsel for the elected Office bearers by his notice dated 09.02.2018, required the 1st respondent to handover the documents. The 1st respondent took time stating that he intends preferring an appeal against the order dated 09.02.2018. 4. In fact, an appeal was filed against the said order and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 30.04.2018 with a specific direction that the documents and keys shall be handed over to the elected Office bearers within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Since the said direction of the Division Bench was not complied with, a Commissioner was appointed to break open the lock and handover possession of the property of the Sangam where, Office of the Sangam was also functioning to the newly elected Office bearers. Since the said direction of the Division Bench was not complied with, a Commissioner was appointed to break open the lock and handover possession of the property of the Sangam where, Office of the Sangam was also functioning to the newly elected Office bearers. The Commissioner so appointed broke open the lock and handed over possession of the property of the Sangam to the newly elected Office bearers on 13.07.2018. However, the documents relating to the Sangam namely, the account books etc., and the title documents relating to the properties of the Sangam were not handed over. 5. Originally, the Contempt Petition was filed only against the 1st respondent namely, L.M.Krishnasamy Nadar, the then President of the Society. Subsequently, the other respondents were impleaded as parties, since the 1st respondent claimed that he had handed over the documents to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, who are the Secretary and the Vice President of the Sangam at the relevant point of time. The 5th respondent, the counsel for the 1st respondent in the suit was impleaded, upon an application having been filed by the petitioner, claiming that the 3rd respondent had stated that the documents have been handed over to the 5th respondent. The 1st respondent / L.M.Krishnasamy Nadar has filed a counter affidavit stating that though he was the President, it was the 2nd respondent, S.V.Manoharan as Secretary and 4th respondent, Thanga Thirupathi who were in-charge of the affairs of the Sangam and they were in possession of the documents and the accounts of the Sangam. 6. As regards the title documents, it is the claimed that the documents were deposited with REPCO Bank and upon clearing the loan with the REPCO Bank, the documents were deposited in the locker rented by the Sangam with IDBI Bank, George Town Branch. According to him, Mr.S.Vijayarajan and Mr.A.Thanga Thirupathi namely, the respondents 3 and 4 were also entitled to operate the Bank locker and they have taken away the documents. He would also claim that the 4th respondent / Thanga Thirupathi, who had started another Sangam bearing Registration No.61 of 2006, is now colluding with the newly elected Office bearers to escape the consequences of his misdeeds. He would also claim that the 2nd respondent, who was the Secretary of the Sangam has committed several irregularities during the term of his Office. 7. He would also claim that the 2nd respondent, who was the Secretary of the Sangam has committed several irregularities during the term of his Office. 7. The 5th respondent / Mutharasu filed a separate counter affidavit wherein, he has contended that the 3rd respondent, Vijayarajan was in-charge of day to day affairs of the Sangam and he claimed that he was the counsel of the respondents 2 to 4 also for several cases including certain money suits in Kovilpatti as well as the City Civil Court. He would claim that they are all in collusion with the newly elected Office bearers and now attempting to put the blame on the 93 year old 1st respondent and himself as he has been vigilantly prosecuting the cases filed against the 1st respondent. 8. Pending the Contempt Petition, the 3rd party namely, Jeyamurugan sent a letter to the Sangam on 09.10.2021 claiming that the title documents have been deposited with certain Financiers, who had lent monies to the 1st and the 5th respondents. He had also made a claim that some of the members of the Sangam attempted to threaten him, asking him to produce the documents. He had further claimed that the documents relating to the properties of the Sangam, except the property at Latice Bridge Road are with the 5th respondent. In view of the said letter and the conflicting claims made, I had permitted Jeyamurugan to be examined as a witness by my order dated 24.11.2021. 9. Pursuant to the same, the said Jeyamurugan had deposed that he along with the 5th respondent had opened a locker at IDBI Bank, Washermenpet Branch and deposited the documents. He had also produced the copy of the locker document, which has been opened jointly in his name and the name of the 5th respondent. He claims to have knowledge of the person, who has custody of the document. Though he was cross-examined by the counsel for the 1st and the 5th respondents, the fact that the locker was opened by him and the 5th respondent at Washermenpet Branch of IDBI Bank was not sought to be contradicted in the cross-examination. Though the other parties have also been examined and they have been cross-examined, I do not find anything useful in the oral evidence with reference to the possession of the documents. 10. Though the other parties have also been examined and they have been cross-examined, I do not find anything useful in the oral evidence with reference to the possession of the documents. 10. This being a Contempt Petition, I am concerned only with the compliance of the directions made in the order dated 09.02.2018. The said order has two directions. One is to handover possession of the building of the Sangam and the other is to handover the documents. As far as the possession of the property of the Sangam is concerned, the same has been handed over to the new Office bearers through the Commissioner appointed by me. Therefore, what remains is the compliance of the direction regarding handing over of the documents. While it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 5, who were in active control of the Sangam are responsible for the custody of the documents of the Sangam, the respondents would indulge in a blame game to avoid the liability. 11. As regards the 1st respondent is concerned, he was the President of the Sangam and he was the one, who was prosecuting the suits and the appeal very deligently with the aid of the 5th respondent as his counsel. Neither the 1st respondent nor the 5th respondent, who was the counsel for the 1st respondent had informed this Court, when the order were passed, directing them to produce documents or when a notice was issued demanding production of documents, that the documents were not available with them. Even, when the Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the appeal by its order dated 03.04.2018, a specific direction has been issued to the appellant therein namely, the 1st respondent herein to handover the keys and records in his custody to the elected Office bearers within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the judgment. No claim was made before the Division Bench that the documents are not with them. 12. It is also seen from the locker records produced from IDBI Bank that the locker was operated by the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent finally on 03.05.2017. Before that, the locker has been operated by the 3rd and 4th respondents on 17.07.2013. Another locker has been opened by the 5th respondent and Jeyamurugan at the Washermempet Branch of IDBI Bank. Before that, the locker has been operated by the 3rd and 4th respondents on 17.07.2013. Another locker has been opened by the 5th respondent and Jeyamurugan at the Washermempet Branch of IDBI Bank. This fact is revealed by the 3rd party witness, Mr.Jeyamurugan. From the entire material on record, it is clear that there is a very serious attempt in some quarters to screen away title documents of the properties belonging to the Sangam with some ulterior motive. 13. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent as the former President of the Sangam owes duty to handover the documents to the newly elected Office bearers and he is answerable to the newly elected Office bearers for the accounts as well as the documents. The 1st respondent seeks to shift the blame on the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who were the other Office bearers at the relevant point of time. The other Office bearers namely, the respondents 2 to 4 on their part seek to put the blame on the 5th respondent, who was the Lawyer for the 1st respondent. 14. It is not for me in the Contempt Petition to go into the question as to who is in possession of the documents. It is the 1st respondent as the President of the Society at the relevant point of time, who has to obey the directions passed against him. He cannot wash off his hands, blaming others. Of course, the 1st respondent is 93 years old and the other respondents are attempting to project him as Villian and escape from responsibilities / liability. When the Hon'ble Division Bench passed a specific direction, directing the 1st respondent to handover the documents, the 1st respondent had not chosen to deny existence of possession of the documents with him. Therefore, he is the one, who is answerable to the Court for non-production of the documents as directed by the Court. 15. Even in his evidence, the 1st respondent has not given any valid reason for not handing over the documents. He has chosen to wash off his hands, saying that the documents are with respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, he is the one, who is answerable to the Court for non-production of the documents as directed by the Court. 15. Even in his evidence, the 1st respondent has not given any valid reason for not handing over the documents. He has chosen to wash off his hands, saying that the documents are with respondents 3 and 4. To a specific question as to whether he has opened the locker on 03.05.2017 and taken away the documents, the witness has not denied, he has stated that the respondents 3 and 4 have taken away the documents but he has not chosen to make any complaint regarding the said action of the respondents 3 and 4. It is also in evidence that the 3rd respondent, Vijayarajan had handed over all the original documents to the 1st respondent on 13.08.2011. Thereafter, the documents were kept in the locker and the locker was opened by the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent on 03.05.2017. It is therefore, clear that the 1st respondent was in possession of the documents in some point of time and now attempting to screen away the documents from the Court for the reasons best known to him. 16. I find, the attitude of the 1st respondent is nothing but a willful and disobedience of the orders of this Court. Despite his advanced age, he appears to be very adamant and determined to see that the Sangam properties are not kept at the disposal of the present Office bearers. He is no doubt actively advised by the 5th respondent, who was his counsel. No doubt, the 5th respondent is not a party to the order of which, the contempt is complained of but the action of the 5th respondent in opening a new locker along with Jeyamurugan raises several doubts about the intention of the 5th respondent. 17. My direction as confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench is only to the 1st respondent to handover the documents. The 1st respondent has singularly failed to comply with the orders of the Court and therefore, rendered himself guilty of contempt. I therefore have no other option but to convict the 1st respondent for having committed contempt of Court by not obeying the orders of this Court dated 09.02.2018, confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 30.04.2018. 18. The 1st respondent has singularly failed to comply with the orders of the Court and therefore, rendered himself guilty of contempt. I therefore have no other option but to convict the 1st respondent for having committed contempt of Court by not obeying the orders of this Court dated 09.02.2018, confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 30.04.2018. 18. Considering the age of the 1st respondent, I impose a punishment of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and direct the 1st respondent to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. It will be open to the present Office bearers to lodge a complaint with the police regarding the loss of documents and if such complaint is lodged, the Police will make appropriate enquiry based on the evidence that has been produced in this Contempt Petition and make all out attempt to trace the documents. There will be a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adayar area to monitor the investigation that would be carried out pursuant to the complaint of the present Office bearers of the Sangam regarding the loss of the documents and the records. 19. This Contempt Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected applications, if any, are closed.