STATE Vs. ADILAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a proceeding for contempt of Court initiated on the report of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur who alleged that the three members of the opposite party committed contempt of his Court by resisting a Receiver appointed by him (Sri Dinabandhu Das) in Title Suit No. 29 of 1951 in taking possession and managing some of the property involved in that suit situated in Village Pundi and its vicinity.

(2.) Opposite Party No. 1 V. Adilakshmi is the wife of opposite party No. 2 V. V. Rama Rao and opposite party No. 3 V.V. Venkateswara Rao is their second son. The father of V. V. Rama Rao was one V. Kameswar Rao who was a rich influential & highly respected man of his time. He died sometime in 1949 leaving considerable immovable property situate partly in Orissa State and partly in village Pundi and other villages in Vizagapatnara district of Madras State. He left a second som named V. B. Narayan Rao and a widow named V. Mahalakshmi Amma. The said lady instituted Title Suit No. 29/51 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, claiming recovery of possession of certain property inclusive of the residential house of the family situate at Pundi, two mills and other property there alleging that these were her exclusive properties having been bequeathed to her by a Will executed by her deceased husband Kameswar Rao. In that suit she impleaded as defendants her two sons, namely, V. V. Rama Rao (defendant No. 1) and V. B. Narayan Rao (defendant No. 4) and the two major sons of V. V. Rama Rao known as V. V. Kameswar Rao (defendant No. 2) and V. Venkateswara Rao (defendant No. 3). On 9-5-1951 the learned Subordinate Judge appointed an Advocate of Berhampur named Sri Dinabandhu Das as interim Receiver in respect of the suit property and directed him to take possession of all the property including the residential house of the family at Pundi which was then in the occupation of the plaintiff's two sons, namely, V.V. Rama Rao and V. B. Narayan Rao. In pursuance of this order the Receiver went to village Pundi on 11-5-1951 accompanied by another Advocate of Berhampur named C. V. Suryanarayana (who appeared for the plaintiff) and took possession of certain mango topes and some landed property. There were two mills, one of which was a big rice and groundnut mill which had been sealed by the Civil Supplies Department of Madras. The other mill was a small one known as Homehuller and Salt-crusher mill which was found to be locked up by V.V. Rama Rao. Neither he nor his elder sons were in the village and consequently the Receiver was unable to take possession of this mill. The Receiver however put his own seal and lock on the door of the mill and left a notice with a younger son of V.V. Rama Rao not to interfere with the seal of that mill. The Receiver however apprehended that serious breach of peace might arise in his administering the property and in his first report dated 12-5-1951 (Ex. 5) he requested the Court (Subordinate Judge of Berhampur) to arrange for police help. On. 19-5-1951 V.V. Rama Rao filed a revision petition CC. R. No. 121/51) before this Court against the order of the Subordinate Judge appointing an interim Receiver. An interim order was issued by this Court staying the hands of the Receiver. But on 29-5-1951 the then Vacation Judge passed a consent order vacating the interim stay order and directing the Receiver to proceed with the administration of the suit property except the residential house at Pundi regarding which he directed that possession of defendants 1 and 4 should not be disturbed. This order was passed in the presence of the parties and also of the Receiver Sri Dinabandhu Das who was present at Puri on that date. The Receiver again went to village Pundi on 2-6-1951 anticipating that in view of the consent order passed by the High Court there would be no difficulty in his taking possession of all the suit properties except of course the residential house at Pundi. He had also given intimation to the Taluk Supplies Officer at Tekkali to remove the seals from the rice and groundnut mill so as to enable him to take possession of the mill. On the 2nd June when he went to Pundi neither V.V. Rama Rao nor his two major sons V. Kameswar Rao and V.Venkateswar Rao appeared before him. But V.V. Rama Rao's wife V. Adilakshmi (Opposite party No. 1) handed over to him a petition written in Telugu and further stated that her minor son Govinda Rajulu had also a share in the ancestral property, that he had not been impleaded as a party and that she as his guardian would not allow him to take possession of the suit property. She also stated to him that any attempt on his part to take possession would be resisted. The Receiver attempted to pacify the lady by saying that he was merely an officer of the Court and was bound to execute its order and that she should seek redress before the Court and not before him. At about 2 p.m. the Taluk Magistrate and the Taluk Supplies Officer of Tekkali also arrived there. In the meantime a mob began to collect near the ancestral house of the family and these officers as well as the Receiver apprehended that physical resistance may be offered if they attempted to take possession of the two mills. The Receiver thereupon sought the help of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Srikakulam who was then at Tekkali. The latter passed an order (Ex. 12-b) directing the Station House Officer of Kasibugga to take action to prevent breach of peace. Armed with this order the Receiver approached the Police Circle Inspector at Palasa and the latter also promised to arrange for police help. On 3-6-1951 the Receiver again went to village Pundi at about 11.30 a.m. accompanied by Sri C. V. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff. They found that a huge crowd had collected near the residential house of the family. At about 1 p.m. under some pretext Advocate Suryanarayana was roughly handled by the mob, thrown on the ground and mercilessly assaulted with fists and causing some bleeding injuries. His pair of spectacles was lost in the melee. The Receiver was then sitting in another room of the house and therefore did not see the actual assault on Advocate Suryanarayana; but when an alarm was raised he deputed certain persons to rescue the Advocate and afterwards learnt from him the circumstances under which he was beaten by the mob. The ring-leader of the mob was said to be one Dokkari Baligadu a staunch partisan of defendant No. 1. It was also alleged that while Advocate C. V. Suryanarayana was being assaulted Adilakshmi and V.Venkateswar Rao were standing on the terrace of their house and watching, the incident. The Receiver noticed a bundle of bamboo-sticks (about twenty or so in number) being removed from the northern wing of the house which was then in occupation of V.V. Rama Rao. The Receiver was then staying in a room of the family house which was then in the occupation of defendant No. 4 Narayan Rao. The assault on the Advocate unnerved the Receiver and he did not venture to come out of the house to take possession of the two mills, though they were not far away from the residential house of the family. At about 5.30 p. m. some police force also arrived at Pundi. But it had no deterrent effect inasmuch as Adilakshmi, her minor son and daughters and V.Venkateswar Rao at once proceeded towards the precincts of the mills to offer resistance as they anticipated that the Receiver may then attempt to take possession of the mills relying on the help of the police. A mob accompanied them towards the mills. The Receiver therefore thought that discretion was the better part of valour and did not come out ot the house to take possession of the mills.

(3.) On the next day (4-6-1951), the Receiver sent a frantic message to the Circle Inspector of Kasibugga for help. The latter arrived there soon afterwards, sent for Venkateswar Rao and had some conversation with him. Apparently, he was satisfied with the results of his talk with, Venkaleswar Rao and did not give further help to the Receiver to take possession of the mills. But Venkateswar Rao challenged the authority of the Receiver to take possession and stated that there would be loss of lives if he made any such attempt. The Circle Inspector refused to give any help to the Receiver and the latter had no other alternative but to return to Berhampur disappointed. He submitted a report dated 30-6-1951 to the Subordinate Judge complaining against the conduct of these persons in obstructing him from taking possession of the mills on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th June, 1951.