Violation of the order of injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a clear evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed the order of the court, the party cannot be punished for disobedience and sent to imprisonment. Though the appellant is said to be the father-in-law of the second respondent, no materials were placed before the court to show that he had the knowledge of the interim order dated 09.12.2004. However, the fact remains that the second respondent and the appellant are the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. The second respondent-vendor having been found not guilty of contempt of court in the revision (being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014), the appellant cannot be placed in a worse situation than his vendor.

                                                           1



                                                                                      NON-REPORTABLE



                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION





                                    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2019

                           [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3608 OF 2017]







                     RAMASAMY (PURCHASER)                                          Appellant (s)





                                                          VERSUS





                     VENKATACHALAPATHI (DECREE HOLDER)               & ANR.        Respondent(s)







                                                 J U D G M E N T





                     R. BANUMATHI, J.







                     1.    Leave granted.







                     2.    This appeal arises out of the Judgment and order



                     dated     09.11.2016        passed    by      the    High    Court   of



                     Judicature at Madras in CRP (NPD) No. 3727 of 2015,



                     in and by which, the learned Single Judge affirmed



                     the     order   of    the     Executing       Court,     finding     the



                     appellant guilty of Contempt of Court for the wilful



                     disobedience     of     the        order   of       injunction     dated

Signature Not Verified

                     09.12.2004      passed        in     the      suit     for    specific

Digitally signed by

JAYANT KUMAR ARORA

Date: 2019.01.31

10:27:08 IST

Reason:

                     performance, being OS No. 162 of 2004 filed by the



                     first respondent.

2

  1. The second respondent, Deivathal, had entered

into an Agreement to Sell dated 08.06.2004 in favour

of the first respondent. The first respondent filed

the suit for specific performance, being OS No. 162

of 2004 and in the said suit, interim injunction was

granted on 09.12.2004 restraining the second

respondent � Deivathal not to alienate the suit

property. The said suit for specific performance was

decreed on 24.08.2006. Even when the said suit for

specific performance was pending, it is alleged that

in violation of the interim injunction dated

09.12.2004, the second respondent � Deivathal had

executed the sale deed dated 17.06.2005 in favour of

the appellant who is none other than the father-in-

law of the second respondent. After the suit for

specific performance was decreed, the first

respondent has also got the sale deed dated

07.12.2006 executed through the process of the Court.

The appellant herein filed the suit for injunction,

being OS No. 29 of 2007, which came to be dismissed.

The first respondent also filed another suit, being

OS No. 61 of 2010 to declare the sale deed dated

17.05.2005 in favour of the appellant as null and

void and the said suit, being OS No. 61 of 2010 was

also decreed. The first appeal preferred by the

appellant also came to be dismissed on 24.02.2017.

It is stated that the second appeal is pending before

3

the High Court.

  1. In the present appeal, we are concerned only with

the alleged disobedience of the interim order dated

09.12.2004, disobedience of which the appellant was

found guilty. In the Execution Petition filed by the

first respondent under Order XXI Rule 32(5) and Order

XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and

the Executing Court held that there was willful

disobedience of the order of the interim injunction

dated 09.12.2004 and found both, the appellant as

well as the second respondent, guilty of Contempt of

Court.

  1. A Revision was filed by the second respondent,

being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014 challenging the

order of the Executing Court and the said revision

was allowed on 11.11.2014. While allowing the said

revision filed by the second respondent � vendor, the

learned Single Judge observed that the materials

available before the court did not indicate that the

second respondent (first defendant) is guilty of any

violation, whereas in the revision filed by the

appellant in CRP (NPD) No. 3727 of 2015 dated

09.11.2016, the learned Single Judge took a different

view by observing that the sale deed was executed

during the pendency of the order of injunction and,

4

therefore, the Executing Court rightly found the

appellant guilty of Contempt of Court for the

disobedience of the order dated 09.12.2004.

  1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the impugned order and the other

materials on record. Violation of the order of

injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a

clear evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed

the order of the court, the party cannot be punished

for disobedience and sent to imprisonment. Though

the appellant is said to be the father-in-law of the

second respondent, no materials were placed before

the court to show that he had the knowledge of the

interim order dated 09.12.2004. However, the fact

remains that the second respondent and the appellant

are the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. The

second respondent-vendor having been found not guilty

of contempt of court in the revision (being CRP (NPD)

No. 1593 of 2014), the appellant cannot be placed in

a worse situation than his vendor. It is also

pertinent to point out that the first respondent �

Decreeholder also had got the sale deed executed on

07.12.2006. The first respondent has also said to

have taken the possession of the property in dispute.

5

  1. In the above facts and circumstances of the case

and considering that the appellant is an

octogenarian, the impugned order is set aside and the

appeal is allowed. We make it clear that the order

in this appeal shall not prejudice the contention of

the respective parties in the second appeal pending

before the High Court and the same shall be decided

on its own merits.

  No costs.



                            .......................J.

                                    [ R. BANUMATHI ]







                            .......................J.

                                [ R. SUBHASH REDDY ]

New Delhi;

January 22, 2019.

6

                                                               CORRECTED

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII

            S U P R E M E C O U R T O F           I N D I A

                    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3608/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-11-2016

in CRPNP No. 3727/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At

Madras)

RAMASAMY (PURCHASER) Petitioner(s)

                                 VERSUS

VENKATACHALAPATHI (DECREE HOLDER) & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 22-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

      HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. A. T. M. Rangaramanujam, Sr. Adv.

                   Mr.   M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR

                   Mr.   C. Rubavathi, Adv.

                   Mr.   P. Raja Ram, Adv.

                   Mr.   V. Senthil Kumar, Adv.

                   Mr.   Pratyush Raj, Adv.



        UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                           O R D E R



  Leave granted.



  The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable

Judgment.

  Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)

COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

   (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)