RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. SETHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant in O. S. No. 572 of 1980 on the file of the Court of principal District Munsif, Thirukovilur, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the order in E. P. No. 342 of 1995 dated 31-7-2001 on the file of the Court of Principal district Munsif, Thirukovilur, filed under order 21, Rule XXXII C. P. C. as per which the defendant viz. revision petitioner, was ordered to be arrested for having committed contempt of Court.

(2.) THE respondents 1 to 3, along with their mother Pattammal, filed O. S. No. 572 of 1980 for declaration, and permanent injunction and alternatively for possession in respect of the suit properties claiming that the suit properties were purchased by their father Ramasamy Iyer, benami in the name of his mother Sornambal as per sale deeds exs. A. 1 and A. 2 marked during the trial of the said suit. The suit was resisted by the first defendant, paternal aunt of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, claiming that she is the owner of the property in view of the fact that it is she, who purchased the suit properties benami in the name of her mother Sornambal and so she is entitled to the enjoyment of the suit properties, in any event, on the death of her mother Sornambal, as her legal heir. The suit was also resisted by her that she was in enjoyment of the suit properties by paying kist, etc. , through Ramaswamy Iyer and on his death, through his sons plaintiffs 1 to 3. Further, it is her case that she, sold the suit properties to the second defendant, namely, revision petitioner, as per sale deed dated 2-5-1980 and thereafter, it is the second defendant, who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3.) THE trial Court, considering the evidence adduced on either side, not accepting the case of the plaintiff, ultimately, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred appeal in A. S. No. 164 of 1983 and the learned subordinate Judge, Villuppuram, allowed the appeal as per judgment dated 16-8-1985 recording finding in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit properties. It appears that the said judgment has become final. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed E. P. No. 342 of 1995 under Order 21, Rule XXXII, C. P. C. on the file of the District Munsif, Thirukovilur, for contempt of Court. The defendant filed counter disputing the decree for declaration and permanent injunction granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Villuppuram, in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The above said E. P. was filed stating that the defendant is cultivating the land by trespassing into the suit properties despite the judgment of Court and as such, the defendant committed contempt of Court. The Executing Court dismissed the said petition as per order dated 8-8-1996 accepting the case of the second defendant that even before the decree was passed in the suit as per judgment in O. S. No. 572 of 1980, the second defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and he continues to be so. Despite such decree granted in the appeal in A. S. No. 164 of 1983, the Executing Court dismissed the petition against which the plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed C. R. P. No. 723 of 1997 and as per order dated 30-10-1998, this Court while allowing the revision, remitted the matter back to the Executing Court and after such remand, the Executing Court as per order dated 31-7-2001, allowed the petition finding that the second defendant trespassed into the suit properties and as such, disobeyed the decree granted in appeal in A. S. No. 164 of 1983 and, therefore, committed contempt of Court. In that view, the Executing Court ordered arrest of the second defendant, which is challenged in this revision.