AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Shah, J.
1.00. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioners herein for an appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents herein for willful and deliberate disobedience of the consent decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990 dated 26/4/1996 and to punish them in accordance with law. Facts leading to the present application, in nutshell, are as under:-
2.00. That the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 are the family members. That the respondent No. 1 herein -Sunnubai widow of Sohrab Baheramsha Pardiwala instituted Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990 in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad inter-alia for a declaration that she is the owner of immovable properties mentioned in para 4A, 4(B)(1) and 4(B)(2) of the said suit inclusive of disputed lands bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki. That in the said suit, the petitioners herein were joined as party defendants.
2.01. That the parties to the said suit entered into consent terms under which it was agreed that the petitioners herein be declared as owners of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki. It was agreed that the original plaintiff - respondent No. 1 herein be declared as absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 748/2. It was declared by the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff that on being declared the petitioners as the absolute owners of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki, she would not have any right, title or interest in the said lands and that she will give consent to the petitioners to mutate their names in the revenue records. It was greed that if the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff does not give consent to mutate the name of the petitioners herein in the revenue records with respect to land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki, her name be treated as cancelled/deleted from the revenue record. That the said consent terms signed by the respondent No. 1 herein and the petitioners herein i.e. parties to the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990, was presented before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad and the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad passed a consent decree on 26/4/1996 declaring the petitioners herein - original defendant No. 2/2 and 2/3, 2/1/1 to 2/1/3 as absolute owners of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki (disputed lands). That the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad has also passed an order that the respondent No. 1 -original plaintiff to take steps to delete her name from the revenue records and if she does not take steps to delete her name from the revenue records, in that case, by virtue of the consent decree, her name be treated as deleted from the revenue records.
2.02. It appears that despite the aforesaid consent decree, which is not even disputed by the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein sold the land bearing bearing Survey Nos. 808/1, 801/1 and 742 by executing registered sale deed dtd. 5/4/2010 in favour of the respondent No. 2 herein.
2.03. It appears that immediately thereafter the respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dtd. 28/4/2010 with respect to land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki (disputed lands).
2.04. That having come to know about the aforesaid transactions/sale deeds, which are contrary to the consent decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990, petitioners have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Valsad for declaration and permanent injunction and to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & 4 as null and void.
2.05. That thereafter, the petitioners have preferred present application for an appropriate action against the respondents herein under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate disobedience of the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1 by way of consent terms and for willful and disobedience of the consent decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Application No. 69 of 1990.
3.00. That the present application came to be admitted by this Court and thereafter Charge was to be framed against the respondents for contempt and the matter was heard at length by this Court on 3/10/2013 and this Court heard Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff, Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After the matter was argued at length on 3/10/2013, Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 made a statement at the bar under the instructions from the respective clients who were personally present in the court that their respective clients are ready and willing to reverse the transactions which were in their favour pursuant to the sale deeds dtd. 5/4/2010 and 28/4/2010, without prejudice to their rights and contentions to recover the amount of considerations paid by them from their respective vendors and they are ready and willing to declare the same on affidavit. Therefore, this court passed the following order on 3/10/2012:
After the matter was argued for some time and more particularly, when Shri R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants concluded the submissions, Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent purchasers of the disputed lands in question) and Shri Mukesh Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 under the instructions from their respective clients, who are personally present in the Court, have stated at the bar that they are ready and willing to reverse the transactions in favour of applicants with respect to disputed lands in question and to execute deeds for the same and are declaring that they will not have any right, title or interest in the disputed land in question on the basis of the respective registered sale deeds in their favour. It is submitted that the aforesaid shall be to show their bonafides and now having come to know about the dispute and as such without admitting that they have committed any contempt. It is submitted that as such on the aforesaid even pending suits can also be disposed of. It is further submitted that however the aforesaid reversal of transactions in favour of their respective clients shall be without prejudice to the rights to recover any amount paid to the respective sellers. At their request and to file specific affidavits by the respective clients to the aforesaid effect, stand over to 7.10.2013. To be listed at 11 A.M.
3.01. That thereafter the matter came to be adjourned to today. It is reported that all the respondents herein i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are personally present in the Court. Separate affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein declaring that they have no objection if the respective sale deeds dtd. 5/4/2010 and 28/4/2010 with respect to the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki (disputed lands) are quashed and set aside and they do not claim any right, title and/or interest in the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki. However, it is submitted that the aforesaid stand is taken by them now as they have come to know with respect to the consent decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990. However, it is requested to observe that by the aforesaid it may not be construed that they have committed any contempt, as alleged. It is also submitted that even the aforesaid declaration shall be without prejudice to the rights of their respective clients to recover the amount of consideration paid by their respective clients from the respective vendors. It is also stated in the Affidavits dtd. 7/10/2013 that they have no objection if the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad instituted by the petitioners herein is allowed and decreed. Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, under the instructions of his respective clients, who are personally present in the court, has stated at the bar that his clients i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are found to be in possession of the disputed lands in question i.e. land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki, shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the said lands to the petitioners on 17/10/2013.
3.02. Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has stated at the bar that the respondent No. 1, who is aged about 89 years is personally present with her brother Mr. Soli H. Khansaheb and has stated at the bar under the instructions from her as well as his brother Soli H. Khansaheb that the respondent No. 1 has no objection if the possession of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki is handed over to the petitioners by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He has also stated at the bar that as and when any application is submitted by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records with respect to land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki and/or wherever the signature of the respondent No. 1 in any proceedings or documents is necessary, the respondent No. 1 shall fully cooperate and give her consent to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records pursuant to the consent decree dtd. 26/4/1996 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 1990 and/or put her signature.
3.03. In view of the aforesaid, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to accept the unconditional apology tendered by them and have requested to close the proceedings.
3.04. Heard Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
3.05. Present proceedings are initiated by the petitioners herein - original defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990 to take action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate disobedience of the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990 in the form of consent terms as well as for willful and deliberate disobedience of the consent decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990 dtd. 26/4/1996. Under the said consent decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990, the petitioners have become absolute owners of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki. Under the consent decree, the respondent No. 1 herein - original plaintiff was required to take steps to delete her name from the revenue records with respect to aforesaid lands and said consent decree also provides that if the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff does not get her name deleted from the revenue records, her name stands deleted automatically from the revenue record. It appears that despite the above clear cut declaration by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad vide consent decree dtd. 26/4/1996 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990, respondent No. 1 sold the disputed lands in question in favour of the respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed dtd. 5/4/2010 and thereafter immediately the respondent Nos. 2 has sold the disputed lands in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by registered sale deed dtd. 28/4/2010.
3.06. After the matter was argued at length by this Court, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & 4 have filed their Affidavits dtd. 7/10/2013, which are directed to be taken on record, under which they have declared that respective sale deeds which are in their favour be cancelled and they do not claim any right, title and interest in the lands in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki and they have no objection if the Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2010 filed by the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad is allowed/decreed. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also stated at the bar that they shall handover the possession of the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/1 to the petitioners on 17/10/2013. Even the respondent No. 1 � original plaintiff, who is personally present in the court, has also stated at the bar that she will fully cooperate in mutating the name of the petitioners in the revenue record with respect to the lands in question.
3.07. Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the respective respondents recoded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that as the litigation is likely to come to an end amicably, present proceedings for initiating contempt proceedings be closed.
3.08. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respective respondents and Affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & 4 dtd. 7/10/2013, which are directed to be taken on record and as declared by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in their respective Affidavits, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall not have any right, title or interest in the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/1 pursuant to the sale deeds dtd. 5/4/2010 and 28/4/2010 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki to the petitioners on 17/10/2013.
3.09. In view of the above and as agreed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and so stated by them in their respective Affidavits, Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Valsad, filed by the petitioners herein for cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & 4 is required to be allowed/decreed and therefore, the petitioners and the respondents herein (original defendants) to submit purshish before the learned Civil Judge to decree the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2010 within a period of three weeks from today and on that, the concerned learned Civil Judge shall decree the aforesaid Special Civil Suit filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & 4, however, the same shall be with respect to the land in question bearing bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki only. As agreed, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki (disputed lands) to the petitioners on 17/10/2013 and obtain necessary Possession Receipt from the petitioners from the petitioners for handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of the said lands.
The respondent No. 1 is directed to act as stated hereinabove and give consent as and when required to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records of the land bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki pursuant to the judgment and decree dtd. 26/4/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990.
At this stage it is required to be noted that as such by consent decree dtd. 26/4/1996 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1990, the petitioners are declared absolute owners of the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki and even the name of the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff stands deleted from the revenue records with respect to land in question bearing Survey Nos. 808/1 and 801/Paiki.
4.00. In view of the above stand taken by the respective respondents, more particularly when the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have agreed to reverse the transactions in favour of the petitioners and considering the physical condition and old age of the respondent No. 1, who is aged about 89 years, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respective respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and close the present proceedings. With the observations and directions, as aforesaid, present application stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.