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

3.     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.



4.    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.



5.    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.



6.    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

7.    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)