Dayal Kuar vs Rajinder Kaur and others

N.K. Sodhi, J.—Dayal Kaur petitioner is a respondent in RSA 1557 of 1987. Rajinder Kaur respondent along with two others is the appellant therein representing Ajmer Singh deceased. Dayal Kaur moved a miscellaneous application in the appeal praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the appellants therein from mortgaging, selling or alienating the land in dispute in any manner. The ad interim injunction was granted on 3.8.1987 and the appellants in the appeal including Rajinder Kaur were restrained from mortgaging, selling or alienating the land in any manner till further orders. The second appeal is still pending in this Court. The miscellaneous application was again taken up for hearing on 7.9.1987 when the counsel for the appellants gave an undertaking to the Court that the appellants would not mortgage, sell or alienate the land in dispute till the decision of the appeal. In view of this undertaking the application filed by Dayal Kaur was disposed of an infrutuous.

The grievance now made in this contempt petition is that in spite of the undertaking given by Rajinder Kaur respondent, through her counsel, she has sold 10 Bighas 11 Biswas 10 Biswasi out of the land in dispute to Mohinder Singh respondent for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs asper registered sale deed dated 11.12.1997. A copy of the sale deed has been appended with the petition. It is also alleged by the petitioner that Mohinder Singh respondent who is the vendee is a relation of respondent No. 1 and has full knowledge of the injunction order granted by this Court. Respondent No. 3 is the Tehsildar at Dera Bassi and respondent 4 was Patwari of Halqa Dharamgarh when the restraint order was passed and they are said to have registered the sale deed in spite of the restraint order.

In the reply filed by the Rajinder Kaur it is admitted that a part of the land in dispute has been sold by her through her general attorney as alleged in para 5 of the petition. The plea taken by her is that she is an uneducated lady and her father Ajmer Singh before his death was pursuing the case and that she was not aware of the undertaking given by the counsel in this Court. She has also pleaded that her general attorney did not alienate the land wish her consent and that the sale has been made bona fide. Respondent No. 3 in the reply has stated that he was the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar at Dera Bassi on 11.12.1997 when the sale deed was registered. He has pleaded that the injunction order was never produced before him at the time of registration of the sale deed and that only a copy of the jamabandi was produced wherein there is no mention of any restraint order by this Court. He has further pleaded that he is law abiding citizen and that he registered the sale deed in good faith without having any knowledge of the restraint order passed by this court. Respondent No. 4 was posted as Patwari Halqa Dharamgarh. He has stated in his reply that the order dated 7.9.1987 was produced before him which was marked to him by the Field Kanungo, Lalru and that he made an entry in the Daily Diary Register at serial No. 277 on 2.5-1995 and thereafter he was transferred. He has stated that at the time of the registration of the sale deed he was not posted in Patwar Circle Dharamgarh.

Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that Rajinder Kaur respondent No.1 has wilfully flouted the restraint order and also the undertaking given by her counsel to this Court. The fact that she sold the land on 11.12.1997 is not disputed. She has pleaded that she was not aware of the undertaking given by her counsel to this Court but this plea is obviously false. She has not only flouted the undertaking but has further aggravated the contempt by filing a false affidavit in reply to the contempt petition. A part of the land in dispute had been sold earlier as well on 20.7.1994 when the restraint order was operative and the petitioner filed COCP No. 250 of 1995 in this Court against Smt. Rajinder Kaur and others alleging that they had violated the undertaking given to this Court. That Contempt petition was contested by Smt. Rajinder Kaur and she was given the benefit of doubt. Kirpal Singh and Chamo were convicted u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for committing contempt of this Court. That contempt petition was disposed of on 16.2.1996. Since Rajinder Kaur had contested that petition and appeared through her counsel it cannot be said that she was not aware of the restraint order. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that she was aware of the undertaking given by her and that in spite of that she sold the land in dispute on 11.12.1997. There is, thus, no manner of doubt that she is guilty of contempt of Court having wilfully flouted the undertaking given to this Court.

Respondent No. 2 is Jai Singh who was the general attorney of Rajinder Kaur when the sale was effected. There is nothing on the record to show that he had knowledge of the restraint order. He cannot, therefore, be held guilty of committing contempt. Respondent No. 3 has stated that the restraint order was never produced before him when the sale deed was registered. Here again, I find that there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that this respondent was aware of the Court order or the undertaking given on behalf of Rajinder Kaur and others. He, too, cannot be said to be guilty of committing any contempt. Respondent 4 had no concern with the registration of the sale deed and was not even posted in that area at the time of the registration. Respondent 2 is the vendee and he has also filed an affidavit staling that he was not aware of the restraint order.

In the result, the petition succeeds and respondent No. 1 is convicted for committing contempt of this Court and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. If default is made in the payment of fine, respondent No. 1 will undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the petitioner by way of compensation. Since no other respondent has been found to have committed contempt of Court, the sale against them stands discharged. It goes without saying that the transaction of sale executed by respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 on 11.12.1997 shall be subject to any order that may be passed by this Court in RSA 1557 of 1987. The petition, thus, stands allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by respondent No. 1.

Petition allowed.