GATRAJ JAIN AND SONS HUF Vs. JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 15.10.2008 made in Contempt Petition No. 711 of 2007 on the file of this Court.) The first respondent prayed for injunction against the defendants pending suit and the second respondent/D3 in the suit namely Savithri gave an undertaking that she will not alienate the suit property. Thereafter, the first respondent, entered into an agreement with the appellant's daughter which included the suit property promising to vacate the property, withdraw all cases, execute necessary conveyances and agreements. He also received Rs.20lakhs, as part of the consideration, which is Rs.60,30,000/-. Thereafter, the second respondent sold the property to the appellant in spite of the undertaking. With the Rs.20 lakhs still in his pocket, the first respondent filed the contempt petition alleging that the undertaking was violated when the sale deed was executed. There is no mention of this agreement in the contempt petition nor the fact that he was paid Rs.20 lakhs. The second respondent also is a party to the contempt petition and not her purchaser i.e., the appellant. An order was passed punishing the second respondent herein for contempt for violating the undertaking and setting aside the sale. The purchaser from the contemnor has filed this appeal. The first respondent, who filed the contempt petition, now cries "Wolf", but we are not impressed. Equity is as equity does.

(2.) THE facts have to be stated in brief: THE suit property belonged to one Mrs.Subbarathnammal, who purchased it in a court auction. On her death, it devolved on her son Subbukrishna Chetty. Subbukrishna Chetty executed a Will, which has been probated by order dated 10.04.2001. THE beneficiary under the Will was his daughter Kanagavalli. He had two sons Janakiraman and Parthasarathy. Janakiraman attacked the grant of probate. But, even the Supreme Court dismissed his case on 17.08.2001.

(3.) THE preliminary objection raised is that the appellant herein is not a party to the contempt petition and the contempt petition is only between the Court and the contemnor and once punishment is imposed, no one can challenge the same except the contemnor himself. Several decisions were placed before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. THE second respondent, who is the contemnor, though served, has not entered appearance either in person or through counsel.