Telangana High Court
CC/1414/2009 of Nalluri Venugopala Krishna Vs Nalluri Rajyam (Died) on 30 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD , THE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1414 of 2009 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
, THE DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1414 of 2009
(Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punishthe Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Courtdated 04.04.2008 in ASMP.No.2200 of 2007 in AS.No.3635 of 2004)
BETWEEN:
Nalluri Venugopala Krishna and another.
AND
... PETITIONERS
Nalluri Rajyam and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SIVA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.S.N. PRASAD
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The respondents in A.S.No.3635 of 2004 have filed this contempt casealleging that in spite of orders of this Court in ASMP.No.2200 of 2007 dated04.04.2008, the appellants (who are respondents herein) have alienatedsome of the plaint schedule properties.
2. The contempt petitioners have mentioned in the accompanyingaffidavit that the respondents have sold item 1 of plaint schedule underregistered sale deed dated 19.02.2007 and another item 12 under registeredsale deed dated 19.02.2007. Hence, alleging deliberate violation of the ordersof this Court, the present contempt case is filed.
3. The respondents have filed counter accepting the alienation butjustified the same on the ground that due to financial crisis and struggle forsurvival they were forced to sell some of the items and it is asserted that even as per the decree of the trial Court, the respondents are entitled to 1/3[rd] share and the portion, which are sold arevery much within the share, which the respondents will be entitled to even asper the decree of the trial Court. It is also asserted that the respondents hadno intention to violate the orders nor any intention to part with the familyproperties but on account of struggle for livelihood they had no other option.
4. As the order of restraint was passed on 04.04.2008, the aforesaid two items 1 and 12 are sold prior to restraint orders of thisCourt dated 04.04.2008. One more item of 67 cents from out of item 11, isalleged to have been sold by the respondents under sale deed dated15.12.2008, which alone is subsequent to the orders of this Court, referred toabove. Technically, therefore, the violation of order is established. However,keeping in view the fact that the respondents alienated the aforesaid item ofthe suit schedule property but well within their share of 1/3[rd] entitlement evenas per the trial Court’s decree and the circumstances pleaded on account ofdire necessity have to be taken into consideration deserving a lenient view inthe matter. I am, therefore, not inclined to proceed further in the matter andeven otherwise, A.S.No.3635 of 2004 has been allowed by a separate ordertoday.
In the totality of the circumstances, this contempt case is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
December , 2010DSK