Hi' TEIE Hifiifi CXTWRT (SF KARHATAKA AT BAKGALORE
Dated this the 19*" éay of November, 20138'; A'
Present:
'rim HON"BLE Hr. Jusfiw :fs'§ii§ _ _ '
A133)
THE Iiox*BLE 25:. Jt:s'rI<:L1 nQ;mH
cmmxxay ccc'§a¢;.j'j'5'i;{.2oo2._
%TWEEN:
1.
M. VcnkatasWa1Vnaiah;="
S/o S1-i Mux:,ina§;;je:§rpé":. ' "
Chaxmasandra, ._ V.
Uttaxahaiiifixfiirii, ' ¢ _
Suhzamanya;p.ufé--;:,_PQst_, ' a
Bang;Va1ore'-f;t3f_)V _ " I
M.Ravi, « V ._ _
S/o Mufsidzlanjagspaég; =
C ;dm,. '
H"ob.1i,
Submfiianyapum Past,
~ 33angé1{§1~:{515O 061.
1*»-'L v V ' '
'S/'O Mtlniriarijappa,
Chanrgasafidm,
Uttaraizalki Hobii,
: AA Subraziianyapum Post,
Vfiangalore-560 {)6}.
* (£33; Sig. 3. Shekar Shetty, Adv.)
...C0fl?LAiNAN"¥'$.
AND
a-u-u-....._._..
Smt. Keii Bai,
W/o late Champalal, -
Aged about 75 years, I
R] at No. 30, II Cross,
Majflcswaram, , . A ' j
Banga}orc--»S60 003. * _
(By 311 Paras Jain, Adv.)
'I'}1is contempt of [1'1i.1dcr Section 2(6)
r/W 11 and lzrfwu :5 ofthg: C<)11téi11pt.. qf§lou1'ts Act, 19?: and
Article 215 _of thgt {if i x_1dia praying to convict the
respondent fiflontcmpt of Courts Act in
acoortiauce _ M
This; cénreugpt being heard and rcscrvcd
for Orders mg’ oi: f<§r Pronounccmcnt of Orders this
. ~ . day, ', V the following: –
(.1!3fi8
A filing of the cases inspitc of the dispute
* ‘A4%._§ega;g1i;:{gi.%ré}1e suit schedule pmpcrty being finally concluded
VA the complam’ ant and the pmdeccssor of the
.A:V1’w;:$;5ondcnt/ accused and raising same objection and filing
objection petitions in the execution pmoccding which
fl
;;’.~»/
amounts to abuse: 01′ process law, the present oonteyngjjt
isfilcd.
2. ‘l”‘hc: brief facts leading td=,A_thc:.;)ijé:s£én.{ the
complainants are as follows: .
One Smt. A.V.v gas th;.3 “O’£lE’Il€I’ of the
property boazmg Nos. sy.No. 8, Jodi
Ranganatlapuxga’ claim to
be the Smt. A.V. Venkatamma.
Aoooxding to had filed a suit – 0.5..
No. may _o£: the First Additional [1 Munoifi;
Esimt. Lakshmamma and others for
V. .§f».titk: and mandatoxy injunction to dcnaolish the
and delivery of possession of the property
m.<.=1 1"*i1;g and 40 situated in sy.No. s, Jodi
village. It is stated that though the trial Court
, " the suit, the complainant Smt. Venkatamma filed an
..a§pcal in R.A.No. 108/1965 in the Court of Civil Judge at
V' Bangalore and the Civil Judge set aside thc judmcnt
and decree of the tztiai Court and while decmeing her suit
%
declared that, the said Venkatamma is the absoiute of
the suit schedule property and further
Lakshmamma and others to demolish the
and hand over the possession. «V
judgment and decree has beqzme It is' e
that in the suit, D.W.2 one 1 of the
accused appeared on behgaif of a'I'.'l(Hi gé.'V\VfC evidence
in the Court. Nevertheiese of this suit, the
husband of the in dispute
fmm uansaction was hit by
docirinevivvof Eis that after the death of
Smt. Venléatemme,_ became the absoiute
_ ownexe as vvheiéxifis of Smt. Venkamxama, prosecuted the
:%ixe::i§x:c;§.1~*z§§cex:eings bearing No. 460/1969 initkafly filed by
(the same came to be renumbered as
_ Exeei1t:io:aHPetition No. 1045/1976) later renumbered as
W " " ;'£;:m«:pe'on ineetaon No. 13211980.
3. Aecoztlmg to the complainants as said iak
also expired during the pendency of the execution proceedings,
her L.Rs., came on record and filed an appliwtion under
§/*’
at
Section 47 (2.11. 0., challenging the jurisdiction
Court. This application came to be rejected 0:1″
thereafter they filed another app1icaVtfi.£$i1’ct1451i:.11cngi1’ifg” fl;c_icie;it21y T. V
of the property to be recovered undtir.
the compia1:1an’ ts, the said afiplitiafion ‘
holding that the identi1ythc&;3;t:;tef®”is dcfitaiie.
4. As of the suit, the
husband ofthtt» the property set
up the ” t -t obstruction applications
and whén 13¢ any relief, approached the Civil
Court in renumbered as ().S. 2322/83
_ scck*;:%,.gu1té1i£:f of that the decree obtained in O.S.No.
as well as fbr injunction. The suit
éanita-to 011 1.4.1987 and the R.F.A.No. 519/1937′
V V _ Was”.’a1se3~.V:tii:3£t1isscd on 21.9.1991 and as this gunmen: in
xnirafi not challenged by any person, it became finaL
the respondent as L.R., of the said Champalal has
filing one car the other appiication in the Executing Court
A’ ‘obsu-acting execution of the legitimate decree obtained by me
complainants’ predecessor in ().S.No. 544/1959. it is
the authoritative pronouncements of the Courts in. of
the light of the complainants over the suit
filing repeated applications and obstxncfing ¢x¢¢u&:_n;”am9untg~ .
to abuse of process of law as Weii figs
the Court and thus the 2
contempt of Court as defined (iii) of
the Contempt of Court _afi_d punished under
Sections 11 and 12 of fine. 61′ Act (heminafter
referred to as V’
O11 name, the respondent appeared
through tizie detailed objections inter aiia
_ oonteficiing ” face of the records as the property
husband of the zespondentj accused was
h””–/Ta. 3:” property of Smt. Vfillkatalllllla in dispute in
V V’ _ the ‘fjamceedings, the respondent had every right to
jfizmtect right and title in the property at all stages and it
be equated to either abuse of process of law or
v .imerference with aeim1’nz’stxat:ive of justice.
2;»
in respect of the property
40 was located at Jodi Ranganathpura
Whereas according to the accused, the
purchased by her husband beam Muncipal
No. 83143 located “at 11 Main Road, Palace
Ifiangalore. It is to be noted that there is no much
V. ciisputc that the erstwhile Jodi Ranganathpura village is known
7. After hearing both the Ceunscl as i.-:1:_=v_s_s
prima facie satisfied as to the contentions of it
fiamed charges and the trail was ”
case, the. complainant cxamjmeq’ ons”xs ii:1css
several documents. T1116 mspoxificggitf sster into
the witness box, howevcf ‘got dsstitsents dmting
and in the cross cxamma’ VAA-‘Qsg’.’conciuswn of the
trial, both I detailed synopsis
reiterating V
3. have :gs,f;§ms in depth and heard the
learned st S
. ‘V VAtVA_t1a.e’0:iitsct it is to be noted that the suit filed by the
W”
11
litigafion. In spate of the same, he has not only ‘the
property cluxting the pendency of the suit 19
object the same even after his ‘V 7
independent suit in U.S.No. 2:322/195:§’–but ax}-:;:.’j4aasan;; esm,
objections in the execuuon ‘i’hei1g,i: of the
husband of the accused I1i=g;&}ed,.viii”is.v;s7:1ao continued
by way of fiiing Ii is to be
noted. that in on 21.6.2001
it has been gexdf’ ” -Z
“”” qee’ru’i£ed1y the applicant
L.Rs,, ofher husband
ctaiming any independent
: * » _ fife :’o_ in question His titieflows
1;».-pm tie’ debtor. Therefore, he is
w;zc’t: ‘er;titIed to make an application either
‘ ‘iirder 21′ Ruie 93?’ or under any other
‘ V. of Ian: before the Executing Court
” .. }_oo)npIaz’m’ng ofany illegal dispossession. His
vendor is fizliy bound by the decree. Having
purchased the property during the pendency
ofthe suit and not making any efibrts to come
on reorgrrd and implead himself,’ he as fully
bound by the decree passed and therefore he
has no right to make an application
5/Xv
12
requesting the Court to adjudicate upon
claim as his ciaim is not independent {gr ”
yuczgmenz debtor whiaz is 7′ .
adjudioazed upon in nwre_!han4onejbfi1r:id{* ‘
“Therefore, 1 am of the only T”
appiioationfiied by the
amounts to éabutsé’ prooéS§”‘ojV;vthe
court and :3 fiable to
Pay _ ‘
order, {gmch fin? rejected. Even in RFA No.
792/2001′ by 61¢ herein decided on 14.3.2002
_ agaj;;§;t’me oxademfafied 3.1.8.2001 passed in Execution Case No.
hgitveen the same party, the learned Single Judgt
A £§i5.fhc identity ofthc propexty observed thus:
“13. One more cxrntention was taken
jbr the appiicant that, suit was flied in the
year 195?’ and 1959 whereas, {I} Main at
Maiieswaram Palace Guttahaifi existed
from 19.51 onwards. As such, the Decree
hofder has not established the very
identification offhe pmperty. ”
5″
“14. in more than one Fomnz, Vt?” ‘M
has been given by tiye..».J14di(r:t11
13
upholding the wntenfiqn pf. ithfie. ‘A
hoider and rejecting the4’oqritention,C;q,*°
Applicant. Now, thflrfiiltzpliactrtt S
that 1!-Iaileswaram _,<_;uzténaIzz_'H
was atmadgfin vléarlier to the
.515.
ofatté’§z1§§3:i1’gi:a1t€4fitéct:”éct:ti§ér”BIO 21 Rule
51% 5¢?¢;z§”‘ct~’:§;:m’s;ed by this Court,
tori’ t)f”‘§3s. 000/-. Even the
Hc1)ttt**¢:e«.V_t’1’£gh «vtttiiourt -in CRP No. 2242 of
. 2001 rm: CRP with a cost of
xRs,A10, -“Even then, the same
Apptuzctrtt approached this Court on
= ahqther application: U/0 21 Rule 9? CH3,
A gtcttrng the same grounds alieged in the
‘ cgpplioatron. If at! these facts are
‘seen it clearly goes to Show that the
” 3Appliccmt is making some efiorts to see
somehow, the decree is not executed.
Tenabie grounds are not at all noticed
either to up-hotd any contention of the
applicant-obstmctor to with hold issue of
l}eh’very Warrant, ”
Y”
15
12. After having heard the learned
pecufiar facts and circumstances of the case,
the accused, who is 3 house wife agedA~a?)Qut.”’7;E”§’jféézirs.Vha{s¢.béefiV ‘ j ‘
possibly misguided by iegal advice;”1«;3.n£1 ea;
considerafion her age, we deemT_i{‘~~ymper-not.to1’se1:ifie1tce”io V
imprisonment but instead ‘$0 find of
123.2000/~. x A . .
13. In :1, stated above, the
contempt xeefiondeni Smt. Keii Bai is
heid ;go§.§¢§{;p:’a;§:§¢finee1 under Section 2(c:}(;ii)
and (iii) ‘tlgee Act and is sentenced to pay a
fine of RS. .’2O(1}4′()~; weeks fmm today in default, she is
uficiergo si:en§1é”iinpxésona;ent for 15 days.
Sd/-u
Judge
Sd/..
Judge