RATAN CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. SHEETAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition is initiated by one Rathan Chandra Sharma and Prithvinath Sharma who are brothers and grandsons of Late Smt. Dhanwati Devi Sharma against their senior uncle, wife and his children.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties started somewhere in the year 1981 when the second accused filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 10357/91 on the file of IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. That was the suit filed by the second accused against his mother Smt. Dhanwati Devi Sharma and his two brothers Sri Ram Chandra Sharma (father of the complainants) and Sri Ramesh Chandra Sharma for partition and separate possession of A" and B" schedule properties consisting of a shop premises and residential premises respectively. Smt. Dhanwati Devi Sharma expired on 31-3-1990 during the pendency of O. S. No. 10357/81 filed by the second accused. During the pendency of that suit, she executed a registered will dated 29-4-1982 bequeathing the suit schedule B" property described therein, in favour of the complainants and that was her last Will made before her death. It is stated that the accused are residing in B" schedule property. The other undisputed facts are that the father of the complainants preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA 33/95 questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment passed in O. S. No. 10357/81. The Division Bench of this Court decreed the entire suit schedule B" property belonging to late Dhanwati Devi Sharma as her self acquired property and not as joint family property as joint family property as claimed by the second accused in favour of the complainants. The Court also declared that the findings of the trial Court that the will made by her dated 29-4-1982 was valid and that therefore, the complainants became the absolute owners of the entire schedule property by virtue of the will executed by their grandmother Late Dhanwati Devi Sharma. The second accused who was plaintiff in the original suit thereafter challenged the judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. (C) 19224/95. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 4-9-1995.

(3.) DURING the pendency of O. S. No. 10357/81 and after the death of Dhanwati Devi Sharma on 31-3-1990, the executant of the will dated 29-4-82, the complainants filed a suit in O. S. No. 10350/92 seeking a decree of declaration of their title to the B" schedule property, a residential premises bearing No. 16 (now No. 14), Osborne Road Cross, Bangalore, possession and mesne profits. The said suit came to be decreed. The second accused herein who was one of the defendants in the said suit preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No. 333/1998 which was dismissed by a considered judgment dated 2-2-1999. Thereafter, the first accused, who is the daughter of the second accused, filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 7206/98 in respect of the same subject-matter and property which was the subject-matter of the two suits mentioned above. She obtained a stay of the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 10350/92. It is alleged that she obtained the stay order by misrepresentation and suppressing material information to the trial Court. This order of stay which is passed by the trial Court in spite of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 10350/92 had already merged with the order of this Court in RFA No. 333/98. The effect of stay of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 10350/92 virtually stalled the execution proceedings initiated by the complainants in execution petition No. 10034/98. Moreover, the accused filed caveat petitions before the City Civil Court claiming absolute right over the said property in spite of a judgment and decree by this Court in RFA 333/98 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. (C) 19224/95. The first accused has deliberately furnished false address in the proceedings and obtained an ex parte stay order against her own father without service of notice to the other defendants in her suit. It is alleged that all the accused resided together headed by the second accused and they have colluded in suppressing the material facts to the Courts below and obtained not only the stay in her suit but also stalled the execution proceedings and the documents produced as enclosures to these petitions prima facie disclose a contempt committed by the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainants prayed this Court to take suo motu cognizance of the criminal contempt against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and take appropriate action against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.