MOHD JAMAL Vs. MOHD SHARIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the appellants-in A.S. 2301 of 1987 pending in this Court. O.S. No. 11 of 1981 was filed on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Sangareddy, by the petitioners for partition of suit A, B. and -C Schedule properties The 1st defendant, the father of therespondents herein, contested the suit claiming that he was exclusive and absolute owner, of plaint B-schedule property and as such B-schedule properties.were not available for partition. The trial Court upheld the claim of the defendants-respondents and dismissed the suit with regard to B-schedule properties and decreed the suit with regard to plaint A and C schedule properties. Questioning the dismissal of the suit with regard to B-s.chedule property, the petitioners-appellants filed the appeal A.S. 2301/87 and the appeal is pending before this Court. Pending the appeal the petitioners-appellants filed C.M.P. 13575/ 87 seeking temporary injunction restraining the 1st respondent from alienating B-sched- ule property. By an order dated 3.9.1987 this Court directed that status quo should be maintained and the same was made absolute by an order dated 1-3 10.1987.

(2.) While the appeal was pending, the 1st respondent died and by an order in C.M.P. 2101/92 respondents 2 to 7 were added as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st respondent. Alleging that the respondents alienated B-schedule properties executing registered sale deeds, being fully aware about the orders of this Court granting status quo and thus the respondents had acted in gross violation of the orders of this Court deliberately, the petitioners 'filed Contempt Case 1412/97..The respondents filed counter-affidavit in the Contempt .Case and the matter was heard by a learned Judge. The Court held that the order in C.M.P. 13575/87 being in the nature of injunction restraining the father of the respondents 3 to 7, from alienating B- schedule property, the petitioners had an alternative remedy of approaching under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, The Court therefore directed to convert the contempt case into an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the present application seeking a relief of penal action against the respondents 3 to 7 by attachment of their property and detaining them in civil prison for their disobedience of the orders of this Court in CMP No. 13575/87, in the above appeal.

(3.) The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that they were not parties to the suit O.S. 11/81 on the file of the Add. District Munsif; Sangareddy. filed against their father for partition. It was also stated that in CMP No. 13575/87-, this Court passed interim orders restraining their father from alienating B-schedule property and has also ordered status quo by order dated 3.9.1987, in CMP 15518/87, the petition.filed by the respondent to vacate the interim order, the order of status quo was made absolute on 13.10.1987. It was clearly stated that by virtue of the said order their father could not alienate or otherwise, dispose .of B-schedule property. It is further averred that B-schedule properties were donated in favour of the respondents by their father by executing gift deed dated 20.1.1987 and on the death of their father they became the absolute owners of the said properties and as s.uch they were competent to alienate the properties. It is also stated that the.sale deeds referred to by the petitioners, dated 11.4.1997 and 13.5.1997. in their affidavit filed in support of the petition, were true. As there was no order of injunction against them restraining alienation, the respondents sold part of the lands under six sale deeds.