DILLI RAJ Vs. K SUBBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the 4th respondent in S.A. No. 70 of 1990, who is one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4524 of 1983 on the file of III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is for punishing the respondent K. Subban, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit and the appellant in the Second Appeal for Contempt of Court for having disobeyed the decree dated 9-8-1995 in the said Second Appeal, by which, inter alia, a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs, was granted.

(2.) THE relevant allegation in the affidavit in support of the application is as follows:? ?the Respondent attempted to trespass into the ?A? Schedule Property and to construct the huts therein. Immediately I lodged a Police Complaint the Respondent's son viz. Murugan came to the said police station and he gave an undertaking in writing that he would not put up any construction in the said ?A? Schedule Property. However, on 21.8.95 night, the Respondent trespassed into the ?A? schedule property and constructed the huts. Next day, I came to know the said illegal action of the Respondent and rushed to the said police station and informed about the illegal action of the Respondent.. I also lodged a complaint on 24.8.95 to the Inspector of Police. the respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 6477/95 on the file of II Asst. Judge City Civil Court at Madras against me praying for a decree of permanent injunction inter alia contending that the respondent is the absolute owner of the land comprised in survey numbers in Old R.S. No. 1793/1. Now R.S. No. 1794/40 of the extent of 845 square feet which forms the ?A? Schedule Property.?

(3.) ON going through the abovesaid allegations and counter allegations, I find that there is no denial in the counter affidavit to the allegation that on 21-8-1995 night the respondent constructed the huts in the A schedule property. The injunction decree was granted on 9-8-1995. While so if the respondent puts up construction on the said A Schedule property on 21-8-1995, he certainly commits contempt of court. Further, the allegation in the supporting affidavit is that prior to this construction on the night of 21-8-1995, the respondent's son Murugan came to the Police Station and gave an undertaking in writing that he would not put up any construction in the said A schedule property. Regarding this allegation, the counter does not deny the factum of respondent's son giving the abovesaid undertaking. That means, even though he knew about the abovesaid undertaking given by his son, he did put up the construction as stated above. Therefore, disobedience of the decree for injunction is still graver.