PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. TARLOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition arises out of the violation of an undertaking given by the respondents in R.S.A. 680 of 1991 whereby they had undertaken not to alienate the suit land in their possession during the pendency of the appeal.

(2.) Petitioner filed a suit for joint possession of one-third share of the suit land in village Simbal Jhallian, Tehsil and District Ropar. She also claimed joint possession of one-sixth share of the land in village Majri Jatan in district Ropar. It was alleged that the petitioner and respondent 4 were the daughters of Bachan Singh son of Jata Singh and respondent 3 was his son. Respondent 1 is alleged to be the son of respondent 4 and respondent 2 the son of respondent No. 3. Bachan Singh son of Jata Singh who was admittedly the owner of the suit land is said to have executed a Will in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner claimed that the said Will was fictitious, illegal and invalid and that the mutation sanctioned on its basis was also illegal. The suit was contested by the respondents who were arrayed as defendants therein and they relied upon the aforesaid Will and claimed that respondents 1 and 2 became the owners of the suit land on the death of Bachan Singh. It was denied that the petitioner was the daughter of Bachan Singh. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18-12-1984 and it was held that the petitioner was the daughter of Bachan Singh deceased and that the execution of the Will set up by the respondents was not proved. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court respondent 1 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar on 11-5-1988 and the findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed and the suit dismissed. Petitioner then filed RSA 680 of 1991 in this Court which stands admitted and is pending. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner apprehended that the respondents were about to sell the land to Harnek Singh son of Jeeva Singh and Gurmail Singh, Harnail Singh, Gurjit Singh sons of Bhagat Singh because an agreement to sell had been entered into by respondent 2 and the aforesaid persons. She then filed Civil Misc. 185-C of 1994 seeking an injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the appeal. When this application came up for hearing on 18-1-1994 notice was issued to the counsel for the respondents. Shri R. L. Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents who were also the respondents in the appeal and after obtaining instructions from his clients he stated that the suit land which had not been sold would not be alienated during the pendency of the appeal. It appears that before the filing of the miscellaneous application the respondents had sold a part of the suit land as there was no injunction restraining them from doing so. On the aforesaid statement being made by Shri R. L. Sharma, the application was disposed of on 1-3-1994 and the following order was passed by V. K. Bali, J.:-

(3.) The grievance now made in the contempt petition is that in spite of the aforesaid undertaking given by the respondents through their counsel, respondent 2 sold land measuring 17 kanals 15 marlas and 9 kanals 19 marlas through two different sale deeds dated 12-5-1994 and 13-5-1994 executed in favour of Harnek Singh son of Jeeva Singh and Gurmail Singh, Harnail Singh, Gurjit Singh sons of Bhagat Singh respectively. It is alleged that the land which has been sold after the undertaking had been given to this Court is part of the suit property situated in village Majri Jatan, District Ropar. It is further alleged that on the basis of the sale deeds the mutations of transfer have been sanctioned on 19-5-1994. Copies of the two mutations have been attached with the petition as Annexures P-2 and P-3.