SMT JAYAMMA vs SMT. RANI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 790 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI H RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 277/3,
9TH A MAIN,
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. SHRI H R RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE SRI H. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 310,
HAL II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
3. SMT LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O LATE SRI VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 003,
CALDRA BLOCK, ELAN HOMES,
KAIKONDARAHALLI,
SARJAPUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
4. SMT KANTHAMMA CHANDRASHEKHAR
W/O SRI N CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 1146,
22ND CROSS, 23RD MAIN,
II SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
5. SMT H R RANI REDDY
W/O LATE SRI M V RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 1288, 32ND E,
CROSS, 26TH MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE FOR C1 TO C5(NOC))
AND:
1. SMT. RANI
W/O LATE G. SRINIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. SMT S. SUSHMA
D/O LATE G SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SRI S SUHAS REDDY
S/O LATE G SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
4. SMT S. SHRUTHI
D/O LATE G. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
5. MS. SMITHA
D/O LATE G. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 90,
MUNAKOLLA BUS STOP,
MUNAKOLLA, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
ALSO R/AT
NO 436/1, 26TH CROSS,
OPP GOVT HOSPITAL,
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
VARTHUR, BENGALURU - 560 087.
6. SRI VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE S SRINIVASULU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT VILLA NO 277,
FORTUNEFIELDS, PHASE 13,
KPHB COLONY, KULKATPALLY,
TELANGANA - 500 072.
7. MR SANNAPPAREDDY SANDEPP REDDY
S/O S VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT VILLA NO 277,
FORTUNEFIELDS, PHASE 13,
KPHB COLONY, KULKATPALLY,
TELANGANA - 500 072.
8. MR KODUR SAI PRATHEEK REDDY
S/O K RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO S-1/6E,
AKHILA VALLEY, ROAD NO 12,
BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD 500 034.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. DEEPAK BASAVARAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A5;
SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR A6-A8)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN
SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT TO PLEASED TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR WILFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
DATED 31.8.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-D) IN O.S.
NO.8762/2012, WHICH WAS IN OPERATION TILL 17.3.2023
AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRAMING CHARGES,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The complainants, being the wife and legal heirs of late H.
Ramaiah Reddy, instituted O.S. No. 8762/2012 before the
competent Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking a declaration of
their ownership over the suit schedule properties on the basis
of intestate succession, together with consequential reliefs of
permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the Trial
Court initially granted an ex parte interim order dated
13.12.2012 and by order dated 31.08.2013, confirmed the
injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, servants and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
agents from interfering with the complainants’ peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and
from executing or registering any documents creating rights
over the properties on the basis of the alleged Will dated
30.10.2004. The complainants allege that, notwithstanding the
subsistence of the said order, accused Nos. 1 to 5 executed an
Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2022 in favour of accused Nos.
6 to 8, agreeing to sell the properties in question for a
consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, of which Rs.75,00,000/- was
stated to have been received as advance. They further allege
that the accused executed a Deed of Declaration dated
17.11.2022, purporting to cancel the earlier Agreement of Sale
dated 26.04.2012, and that certain accused subsequently
executed a Deed of Release dated 30.03.2023 in favour of
accused No.2. According to the complainants, these
transactions were undertaken in disregard of the subsisting
injunction and were intended to create or recognise rights in
respect of the disputed properties.
2. The complainants contend that the execution of the
aforesaid documents constituted willful and deliberate
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
disobedience of the Trial Court’s order, which continued to
operate until the suit was disposed of by judgment and decree
dated 17.03.2023. By the said judgment, the suit was partly
decreed in respect of certain items and dismissed insofar as
Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were concerned. Aggrieved by the
dismissal of the suit in respect of those items, the complainants
preferred R.F.A. Nos. 768/2023 and 1267/2023 before this
Court. It is their further case that, in R.F.A. No. 768/2023, this
Court, by order dated 18.04.2023, granted interim protection in
respect of the disputed properties. The complainants maintain
that the transactions entered into by accused Nos. 1 to 5
during the subsistence of the Trial Court’s injunction cannot be
justified by the subsequent disposal of the suit, particularly
when the judgment and decree are under challenge in the
pending appeals. They also allege that accused Nos. 6 to 8
were aware of the pending litigation and the interim order, as
evidenced by the terms of the Agreement of Sale and the
arrangement concerning litigation expenses. On these
allegations, the complainants seek initiation of contempt
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
proceedings against the accused for willful disobedience of the
order dated 31.08.2013.
3. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 resist the contempt petition as
not maintainable either in law or on facts and seek dismissal of
the proceedings. They contend that the original suit was
instituted against late G. Srinivasa Reddy and another
defendant and that, upon the death of G. Srinivasa Reddy on
07.10.2009, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were brought on record as his
legal representatives. Their principal objection is that the
interim injunction was originally passed against the deceased
defendant and that no separate order of injunction was
subsequently passed specifically against them after they were
impleaded as legal representatives. They further contend that
the agreements/documents in question were executed in
respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the suit schedule
properties, in relation to which the suit ultimately came to be
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023.
According to them, the interim injunction, being an
interlocutory order intended to operate during the pendency of
the suit, stood merged in the final judgment and decree, and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
its subsequent effect must be determined in the light of the
ultimate adjudication of the suit.
4. The accused further contend that they have not
executed any sale deed conveying the suit schedule properties
to accused Nos. 6 to 8 and that the transaction relied upon by
the complainants is only an Agreement of Sale, under which the
registered sale deed was to be executed after disposal of the
suit. They submit that the execution of such an agreement, in
the circumstances pleaded by them, does not by itself establish
willful disobedience warranting punishment for contempt. It is
their specific case that, since the suit in respect of the
properties covered by the agreement was dismissed and the
interim injunction merged in the final judgment, no subsisting
restraint could be relied upon to sustain the present
proceedings in respect of those properties. On these grounds,
accused Nos. 1 to 5 deny having deliberately disobeyed any
operative order of the Court and pray that the contempt
proceedings be dropped.
5. Accused Nos. 6 to 8 contend that the contempt
petition is not maintainable against them. They submit that the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
suit, O.S. No. 8762/2012, was instituted for declaration of title
and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule
properties. During the pendency of the suit, accused Nos. 1 to
5 executed an Agreement of Sale in their favour on 17.11.2022
in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, expressly subject to the
outcome of the suit. They contend that they were purchasers
under the agreement and that the execution of the agreement,
by itself, does not establish willful disobedience of the
injunction order.
6. They further contend that the suit was ultimately
dismissed in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, which are the
properties covered by the Agreement of Sale, and that the
interim injunction merged with the final judgment and decree.
On that basis, they deny that their conduct attracts contempt
and seek dismissal of the petition as against them.
7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri
Pramod Nair and Sri Deepak Basavaraj and Sri Chokkareddy
appearing for the respective parties.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
8. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the records
placed before this Court and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the complainants and the alleged contemnors, the
question that arises for consideration is whether the
complainants have made out a case warranting initiation of
contempt proceedings against the accused for willful and
deliberate disobedience of the order dated 31.08.2013 passed
by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
O.S. No. 8762/2012.
Reasons and conclusion
9. We have considered the rival submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the complaint, the statements of objections filed by accused
Nos. 1 to 5 and accused Nos. 6 to 8, and the documents placed
on record. The grievance of the complainants is that the
accused wilfully disobeyed the order dated 31.08.2013 passed
by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
O.S. No. 8762/2012, by entering into an Agreement of Sale
dated 17.11.2022 in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the
suit schedule properties, followed by a Deed of Declaration on
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
the same date and a Release Deed dated 30.03.2023. The
complainants contend that these transactions were undertaken
when the interim injunction was in operation and, therefore,
constitute deliberate disobedience warranting action under the
law of contempt.
10. The defence of accused Nos. 1 to 5 is that the
Agreement of Sale was executed on account of financial
difficulties and family necessities, including the requirement of
funds to conduct the pending litigation. They maintain that the
agreement was expressly made subject to the outcome of the
suit and that the registered sale deed was to be executed only
after disposal of the suit and receipt of the balance
consideration. Accused Nos. 6 to 8 have also disputed the
maintainability of the contempt proceedings, relying upon the
conditional nature of the transaction. On examination of the
Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2022, we find that its recitals
acknowledge the pendency of the civil proceedings and
contemplate completion of the transaction only in accordance
with the stipulated conditions. The material placed before us
does not establish that a registered sale deed conveying title to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
accused Nos. 6 to 8 was executed pursuant to the said
agreement.
11. It is also relevant that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were not
the original defendants in the suit before the Trial Court. They
entered appearance in the proceedings only as the legal heirs
of defendant No. 1, their father, upon his demise on
17.10.2019. They contend that they were not aware of the
interim order dated 31.08.2013 and that no separate interim
order of injunction was passed against them. These
circumstances are relevant while examining whether their
conduct can be regarded as wilful and deliberate disobedience
of the order in question.
12. It is also relevant that the Trial Court, by judgment
and decree dated 17.03.2023, partly decreed the suit in respect
of certain items of the suit schedule properties while dismissing
the claim in respect of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. The
complainants have challenged the said judgment and decree in
R.F.A. Nos. 768/2023 and 1267/2023, and interim protection
was granted by this Court in the pending appellate proceedings.
Thus, the rights of the parties in respect of the disputed
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
properties remain the subject matter of appellate adjudication.
In the present contempt proceedings, this Court is not called
upon to determine the title to the properties or the ultimate
rights of the parties under the Agreement of Sale. The inquiry
is confined to whether the material placed on record establishes
wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order complained of.
13. Having regard to the nature of the transaction, the
conditions incorporated in the Agreement of Sale, the fact that
accused Nos. 1 to 5 came on record only as legal heirs of the
original defendant, their contention regarding lack of knowledge
of the interim order, the absence of a separate interim order
against them, and the subsequent judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court, we are of the view that the material placed
before us does not sufficiently establish the requisite wilfulness
warranting continuation of contempt action against the
accused. The mere execution of the Agreement of Sale, without
examining its terms and the precise nature of the restraint
imposed by the injunction, cannot by itself be treated as
conclusive proof of contempt. We are, therefore, not inclined to
proceed further against the accused in the present proceedings.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
complainant has placed reliance on the judgments in
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Others v. Hind Rubber
Industries (P) Ltd. and Others , (1997) 3 SCC 443, and
Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59. However, the
principles laid down in the said judgments, when considered in
the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
do not advance the case of the contempt. The applicability of
the principles laid down therein must be examined with
reference to the nature of the order alleged to have been
violated, the persons bound by such order and the
circumstances in which the alleged disobedience occurred.
Having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the
present case and the material placed on record, we are not
persuaded to initiate contempt proceedings against the
contemnors.
15. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed, and
the contempt proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 8 are
dropped.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56231-DB
CCC No. 790 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010411772023
16. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the question of contempt and shall not
prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the
pending regular first appeals or in any other appropriate
proceedings concerning the suit schedule properties.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
RKA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28