LAWS(MAD)-1998-10-134

ARTHUR THEODORE JAMES DECEASED Vs. MRS HANNA ROSALINE

Decided On October 28, 1998
ARTHUR THEODORE JAMES Appellant
V/S
HANNA ROSALINE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks initiation of contempt for punishing respondents herein for having committed civil contempt by disobeying the final order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1170 of 1992 dated 12.7.1996, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) PETITIONER, i.e., first applicant Arthur Theodore James, filed O.S. 6861 of 1969, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, claiming partition. After trial, the City Civil Court passed a preliminary decree on 6.8.1977 declaring that plaintiff is entitled to one-third share in the property. PETITIONER, thereafter, filed I.A. 25822 of 1977, for passing final decree. Commissioner was appointed to find out whether the properties are capable of division. In the meanwhile, defendant S.C. James filed A.S. 185 of 1978 against the preliminary decree, and it was dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1982. Against that, she preferred L.P.A. No. 19 of 1983, and it was also dismissed on 2.3.1988. After dismissal of those Appeals, final decree application was taken up, and, on the basis of Report filed by the Commissioner, final decree was passed on 11.11.1990. Defendant died, and in his place, his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4. PETITIONER was allotted Plot A in the Commissioner's Plan Ex. C-2 appended to the final decree. Defendants 1 to 4 were directed to put the plaintiff in possession of the property, and in respect of "B" Schedule property in Tambaram, plaintiff was allotted the portion marked "A" in the Commissioner's Plan marked as Ex. C-3. Defendants 2 to 5, not satisfied with the allotment, filed A.S. 142 of 1991, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Appellate Court modified the final decree regarding pathway and confirmed the allotment. Defendants 2 to 5 filed Second Appeal No. 1175 of 19 92, before this Court, and it was dismissed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS submit that they are not claiming any right over the property allotted to the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel is recorded.