Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Bai Lodha vs Mansingh on 12 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796
1 MCC-2205-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2205 of 2024
SMT. MEERA BAI LODHA
Versus
MANSINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajnish Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Shri Ashish Singh Jadon, and Shri Akram Khan -
Advocates for respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 4.
Shri T.C. Narwariya - Advocate for respondent No. 5.
Shri Saurabh Bhelsewale - Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
Shri K.N. Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Sushri Suhani Dhariwal - Advocate
for respondent No. 8.
ORDER
This M.C.C. under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been filed complaining disobedience and breach of order dated 06/03/2014 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 38/2014, by which parties were restrained from alienating or creating third-party right or interest on the disputed property till further order.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that in spite of aforesaid temporary injunction order, respondent No. 1 has sold the disputed property, i.e., Survey No. 550, area 0.366 hectare, situated at village Puraposar, Patwari Haka No. 51, Tahshil and District Guna, to respondent No. 5 by registered sale deed dated 01/03/2024 and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 2 MCC-2205-2024 signed the sale deed as consenters, whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have signed the said sale deed as witnesses. It is submitted that respondent No. 8 has registered the sale deed in spite of a written objection made by applicant on 16/01/2024 at 05:17:03 p.m.
3. Per contra, respondent No. 8 has filed his unconditional apology on the pretext that respondent No. 8 was discharging his duties as Sub Registrar, and there was no intention on his part to bypass or disobey the order of this Court.
4. Respondent No. 5 has also tendered his unconditional apology but has claimed that applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that it was informed by the seller that the dispute has already stood finally and amicably settled between the parties pursuant to an intervention by the respected members of the society, and therefore, respondent No. 5 had purchased the property in dispute.
5. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have also stated that they have high regard for the Court, and since they were informed that the contesting parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 became witnesses to the sale deed.
6. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed their separate returns. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted their unconditional apology, but it is clear from the reply that respondent No. 4 has not submitted his unconditional apology. Again, a stand has been taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 that because of an out-of-court amicable settlement, the sale deed was executed, and there was no intention on the part of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to violate or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 3 MCC-2205-2024 disobey the interim injunction order passed by this Court.
7. The name of respondent No. 2 - Bablu Lodha has already been deleted on account of his death.
8. In the light of returns filed by respondent Nos. 1, and 3 to 8, a rejoinder has been filed by applicant and claimed that no settlement, either oral or written, was ever arrived at between the parties at any point of time, much less on or around 22/07/2024 or prior thereto. It is submitted that even an FIR in Crime No. 40/2024 was lodged on 13/01/2024 at Police Station Guna, District Guna for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
9. Considered the submissions made by parties.
Respondent No. 8.
10. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondent No. 8 submitted that since he was not a party to the litigation, and since the interim order passed by this Court is an order in personam and not in rem , therefore, respondent No. 8 was not obliged to follow the interim order. Furthermore, it is submitted that this Court, by order dated 22/07/2024, had issued notice to respondent No. 1 only, and therefore, he is not required to make any further submissions.
11. Aforesaid submission made by counsel for respondent No. 8 is per se illegal and misconceived and shows the arrogant attitude of respondent No. 8 in violating the interim order passed by this Court. This Court, by order dated 06/03/2014, had directed that respondent No. 1 - Mansingh is restrained to alienate or create third party interest in the disputed property till Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 4 MCC-2205-2024 further order. It is also not out of place to mention here that the State of Madhya Pradesh is a party to First Appeal No. 38/2014, and respondent No. 8 is a functionary of the State.
12. In view of the stand taken by respondent No. 8 that since he is not a party to the First Appeal, therefore, he was not bound by interim order dated 06/03/2014, counsel for respondent No. 8 was directed to clarify that when the alienation would take place and when it can be said that a third party right has been created in the disputed property.
13. It was fairly conceded by counsel for respondent No. 8 that if the value of immovable property is more than Rs. 100/-, then the alienation can take place only on registration of the sale deed.
14. Thus, it is clear that unless and until the sale deed is registered, the property cannot be said to have been alienated or it cannot be said that any third-party right has been created. Being the functionary of State, respondent No. 8 was directly or indirectly a party to the First Appeal. Furthermore, if respondent No. 8 had refused to register the sale deed, then there would not have been any alienation or creation of any third-party right or interest in the property and at the most, it could have been said that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 had tried to disobey the order dated 06/03/2014. The disobedience of order dated 06/03/2014 became complete only when respondent No. 8 registered the sale deed. Above all, applicant has filed a copy of receipt as Annexure A-3 to show that protest was made before respondent No. 8 on 16/01/2024 at 05:17:03 p.m. against any attempt to register the sale deed. Therefore, it is clear that even respondent No. 8 was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 5 MCC-2205-2024 specifically made known about the interim order, but still he registered the sale deed. In the return, he has not explained the circumstances under which he had registered the sale deed.
15. So far as the contention that this Court, by order dated 22/07/2024, had taken cognizance only against respondent No. 1 is concerned, the same loses its efficacy in the light of order dated 10/11/2025 by which cognizance was also taken against rest of the respondents. Therefore, now it is not open to respondent No. 8 to claim that since cognizance was taken by this Court by order dated 22/07/2024 against respondent No. 1 only, therefore, he is not required to file any reply or contest these proceedings.
16. Accordingly, it is held that the conduct of respondent No. 8 in registering the sale deed in spite of the temporary injunction order amounts to gross violation of interim order dated 06/03/2014, and accordingly, he is held guilty of committing breach of interim order dated 06/03/2014 passed in F.A. No. 38/2014.
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
17. Respondent No. 1 has alienated the suit property, whereas respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stood as consenters. At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that respondent No. 2, who was also the consenter, has expired during pendency of this M.C.C., therefore, his name was deleted. The only defence taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is that since there was an out-of-court compromise between the parties, therefore, under bona fide belief, they had executed the sale deed.
18. The aforesaid contention has been categorically refuted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 6 MCC-2205-2024 applicant by filing a rejoinder, and no additional reply has been filed by any of the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the defence taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 regarding out-of-court compromise between the parties is false even to their knowledge. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that any out-of- court compromise had taken place, then it was necessary on the part of respondent No. 1 to file an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and to get a compromise decree from this Court, and only thereafter, he could have dealt with the property in accordance with the compromise decree. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that even if the defence taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is considered, still it cannot be said to be a valid defence.
19. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are held guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 06/03/2014 passed in F.A. No. 38/2014.
20. Although respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have tendered their unconditional apology, but respondent No. 4 has not tendered any unconditional apology for his act.
Respondent No. 5.
21. Respondent No. 5, who is the purchaser, has also tendered his unconditional apology and has referred to order dated 22/07/2024 passed by this Court by which cognizance was taken against respondent No. 1 only.
This respondent has also taken a defence that an out-of-court family settlement had taken place, and therefore, he had purchased the property.
22. This Court, while considering the similar defence taken by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 7 MCC-2205-2024 respondent No. 8, has already dealt with the question of taking cognizance and in the light of order dated 10/11/2025, it has been held that once cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was also taken, therefore, respondent No. 5 cannot take a defence that cognizance was taken against respondent No. 1 only.
23. This Court has already held that either no out-of-court compromise had taken place between the parties or even if it had taken place, still in absence of any compromise decree, the injunction order could not have been violated by any of the parties, and thus, it is held that respondent No. 5 is equally guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 06/03/2014.
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
24. These respondents are signatories to the sale deed as witnesses. They have also taken a stand that they were told that an out-of-court compromise had taken place between the parties.
25. Even presuming that they were misled by respondent Nos. 1 to 5, still, acting blindly on the information given by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 cannot be said to have been done in good faith. "Good faith" has been defined under Section 2(11) of BNS which reads as under:
"2. Definitions.- ...
(11) "good faith".---Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention;
* * *"
It is not the case of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that they were shown any document to show that any compromise decree has been passed in First Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 8 MCC-2205-2024 Appeal No. 38/2014.
26. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are also held guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order dated 06/03/2014.
Punishment
27. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 3 to 8 are heard on the question of punishment.
28. Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, only two punishments are provided, i.e., attachment of the entire property or civil imprisonment for a period of three months.
29. Respondent No. 5 has filed I.A. No. 260/2026 along with a cancellation deed Annexure R-1 and submitted that on 22/12/2025, he has executed a cancellation deed in favour of respondent No. 1. In the cancellation deed, it is mentioned that respondent No. 5 has received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash from respondent No. 1. In the light of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, it is clear that no transaction beyond an amount of Rs. 20,000/- can take place in cash. Therefore, the averment made in the cancellation deed that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been received back by respondent No. 5 from respondent No. 1 in cash cannot be relied upon.
30. It is also mentioned in the cancellation deed that respondent No. 1 was in possession of the property. However, in the cancellation deed, it is not mentioned that respondent No. 5 has restored back possession of the land to respondent No. 1. In the sale deed dated 01/03/2024, it was specifically Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 9 MCC-2205-2024 mentioned that possession was handed over to respondent No. 5. Thus, it is clear that the averments made in the sale deed dated 01/03/2024 and cancellation deed dated 22/12/2025 are self contradictory. Thus, it is clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have not shown their bona fides and are still playing with the Court. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No. 5, by executing a deed of cancellation of sale deed dated 01/03/2024, has shown his bona fides.
31. Under these circumstances, the land in dispute, i.e., Survey No. 550 area 0.366 hectare situated in village Puraposar, Patwari Halka No. 51, Tahsil and District Guna, is hereby attached and Tahsildar, Guna is appointed as Receiver. Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are directed to immediately hand over possession of the land in dispute, i.e. Survey No. 550 area 0.366 hectare, situated in village Puraposar, Patwari Halka No. 51, Tehsil and District Guna, to Tahsildar, Guna. Tahsildar, Guna is directed to immediately take possession of the land in dispute as Receiver.
32. Since respondent No. 1 had sold the property to respondent No. 5 and respondent Nos. 2 (Dead), 3 and 4 had signed the sale deed as consenters, whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had signed as witnesses knowingfully well that the injunction order is in force, accordingly, their entire properties are directed to be attached for a period of one year or till further order, whichever is earlier. Tahsildar, Guna is appointed as receiver.
3 3 . Tahsildar, Guna is directed to prepare an inventory of all the properties belonging to respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and immediately take the same in his possession. Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 10 MCC-2205-2024 directed to peacefully and amicably hand over all the properties standing in their name, or in which they have share, to Tahsildar, Guna, latest by 27/01/2026.
34. Heard on the question of punishment of respondent No. 8
35. Respondent No. 8 is a Government official and although the State Government was a party to the First Appeal and no alienation can take place unless and until the sale deed of a immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- is registered, and in spite of the temporary injunction order, he has shown complete disregard, although a protest petition was already filed by applicant against any possible attempt to register the sale deed. Under these circumstances, the written apology tendered by respondent No. 8 cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
36. Accordingly, entire properties of respondent No. 8 are directed to be attached for a period of one year or till further order, whichever is earlier, and Tahsildar, Guna is appointed as receiver. T ahsildar, Guna is directed to prepare an inventory of all the properties belonging to respondent No. 8 and immediately take the same in his possession. Respondent No. 8 is directed to peacefully and amicably hand over all the properties standing in his name or in which he hsa a share to the Tahsildar, Guna, latest by 27/01/2026.
37. Tahsildar, Guna is directed to submit his report regarding taking possession of all the properties belonging to respondents, latest by 30/01/2026.
38. Office is directed to list this case on 30/1/2026 under "direction matters" to consider the report of Tahsildar, Guna with regard to attachment Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1796 11 MCC-2205-2024 and taking over of possession of property in dispute as well as all the properties of respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
39. With aforesaid observation, this M.C.C. is finally disposed of.
40. It is made clear that if any of the respondent(s) creates any nuisance or any hurdle in attachment or taking over possession of the property by Tahsildar, Guna, then the option of sending them to civil jail is kept open, and in case if it is found that any obstruction was created by any of the respondents in attachment or taking over of possession of his property, then while considering the report of Tahsildar, Guna, this Court may also require the respondents to argue on the question as to why they should not be sent to civil jail.
41. Accordingly, all the respondents are directed to remain present on 30/1/2026 at the time of consideration of report by Tahsildar, Guna.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 16-01-2026 04:52:13 PM