Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Prasad Sharma vs Ramshri @ Rajwati D/O Late Shri Ramratan on 6 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MCC-780-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCC No. 780 of 2023
(MAHESH PRASAD SHARMA Vs RAMSHRI @ RAJWATI D/O LATE SHRI RAMRATAN AND OTHERS )
Dated : 06-08-2025
Mr. Rohit Bansal - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Upendra Yadav - Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwah - Govt. Advocate for respondents Nos. 4 and 8 / State.
None for respondents Nos.2, 5 to 7, though served.
This application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC r.w. Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act complaining the willful disobedience and non-compliance of order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Second Appeal No. 307/2021.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that second appeal was admitted by order dated 12.08.2021, and following interim order was passed:-
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant is still in possession of the property in question, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing."
It is submitted that thereafter on 22.09.2021, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their vakalatanama in Second Appeal No. 307/2021. An application was also given by the applicant to Tahsildar, Tahsil Kailaras, District Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 2 MCC-780-2023 Morena, thereby informing about the interim order dated 12.08.2021 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 307/2021.
It is not out of place to mention here that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are real sisters, being daughters of Late Shri Ramratan.
In spite of the order dated 12.08.2021, respondent No. 3 - Vinda Bhardwaj executed a sale deed dated 02.11.2021 in favour of respondent No. 5 - Shiv Kumar Sharma, Annexure D, and sale deed dated 02.11.2021 in favour of respondent No. 6 - Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure E, respondent No. 1 - Ramshri Bairagi executed a sale deed dated 06.08.2021/12.08.2021 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure F, and respondent No. 2 - Mahadevi Bairagi executed a sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure G, and Mahadevi Bairagi also executed another sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of respondent No. 7 -Pradeep Mangal, Annexure H. It is also contended that Ramshri had also executed a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2021/12.08.2021 in favour of Sonu Bansal. It is submitted that although respondents were aware of the interim order dated 12.08.2021, in spite of that, they executed multiple sale deeds in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Pradeep Mangal, and Sonu Bansal. Thus, it is submitted that respondents have committed breach of temporary injunction order dated 12.08.2021. It is further submitted that any sale deed executed in breach of temporary injunction order has to be treated as non-est as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jehal Tanti & Ors vs. Nageshwar Singh(D) Thr. Lrs, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 689 .
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:023 MCC-780-2023
3. Per contra, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed their reply and have stated as under:-
"3. For such contention petitioner has stated that the property has been sold by respondent and the sale deed has been enclosed. The sale deed executed by Vinda is dated 02-11-2021, sale deed executed by Ramshri is dated 06-08-2021 and sale deed executed by Mahadevi is dated 21-12- 2022.
4. It is to be submitted here that there is no order in relation to stay over the transfer/alienation of the said property.
5. That, the interim order dated 12-08-2021 was passed ex parte by this Hon'ble Court and prior to said order no notices were issued nor were served to the respondents.
6. Although the order dated 12-08-2021 is about admission but no substantial question of law are reflected in the order.
7. It is to be submitted that so far as the status quo is concerned, it is only in relation to possession as following order has been passed:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant is still in possession of the property in question, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing."
Under such circumstances, the transfer of property do not cause any contempt of court. Since the order was not intimated to the respondent as it was ex parte order, therefore it could not be said that the respondent no. 1 to 3 have committed any contempt.
8. That, the Petition itself is misconceived as stay has been sought in relation to possession, therefore the alienation of property do not cause any breach of the order.
9. That, the petitioner do not get any benefit out of order Annexure-I, as it is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of present petition therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. It is submitted that in the captioned second appeal no. 307/2021, the Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the respondents on 22-09-2021."
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Admittedly, Vinda Bhardwaj executed sale deed in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma on 02.11.2021, Annexure D, and executed another sale deed dated 02.11.2021 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure E. Mahadevi Bairagi executed sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Annexure G. Mahadevi Bairagi also executed another sale deed dated 21.12.2022 in favour of Pradeep Mangal, Annexure H. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 4 MCC-780-2023
6. Another sale deed was executed by Ramshri Bairagi on 06.08.2021/12.08.2021, i.e., the day on which temporary injunction order was passed. One more sale deed was executed by Ramshri on 06.08.2021/12.08.2021 in favour of Sonu Bansal, i.e., prior to passing of temporary injunction order. Thus, it is clear that four sale deeds were executed by Vinda Bhardwaj, and Mahadevi Bairagi subsequent to the temporary injunction order passed by this Court. Respondents were aware of the temporary injunction order because they had already entered their appearance by filing vakalatanama in Second Appeal No. 307/2021 on 22.09.2021. Two sale deeds executed by Ramshri Bairagi were registered on the very same day when the temporary injunction order was passed by this Court.
7. So far as sale deed dated 02.11.2021, Annexure D, sale deed dated 02.11.2021, Annexure E, sale deed dated 21.12.2022, Annexure G, and sale deed dated 21.12.2022, Annexure H, executed by Vinda Bhardwaj and Mahadevi Bairagi are concerned, since they were subsequent to the passing of temporary injunction order, therefore, only question which arise for consideration is as to whether aforesaid sale deeds were executed by Vinda Bhardwaj, and Mahadevi Bairagi in the utter violation of temporary injunction order passed by this Court or not?
8. It is the stand of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that since the order of maintaining status-quo was passed, therefore, it is clear that it was only in respect of possession. Since respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have merely executed the sale deed without disturbing the possession of applicant, therefore, they Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 5 MCC-780-2023 have not committed any breach of temporary injunction order.
9. Aforesaid defence taken by respondents cannot be accepted. Interim order dated 12.08.2021 was not confined to possession part only. The observation made by Co-ordinate Bench that "as the appellant is still in possession of the property in question" merely indicates the basis for issuing the temporary injunction order, i.e., "to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing", and it was nowhere mentioned that temporary injunction order is only in respect of maintaining possession.
10. Furthermore, Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act makes the situation clear, which prohibits one party from alienating the subject matter of the dispute during the pendency of the suit without the leave of the Court. Therefore, stand taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 3, that this Court had not restrained them from alienating the property in dispute, and had only issued a temporary injunction order in respect of possession, cannot be accepted, and it is hereby rejected.
11. That is not the end of the matter. It appears that respondent No. 3 - Vinda had also executed a sale deed in utter violation of temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court, and by order dated 17.09.2018, Annexure I, she was held guilty of committing breach and was sent to civil jail for a period of three months.
12. Reply submitted by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 is completely silent with regard to the said aspect.
13. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 is also not in a position to make a submission as to whether respondent No. 3 - Vinda had undergone Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 6 MCC-780-2023 the civil imprisonment of three months, or said order was either stayed by the higher Court or it was ever set aside.
14. Since respondents have decided not to comment upon the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Sabalgarh, District Morena in MJC No. 02/2018, it is clear that respondent No. 3 is in the habit of committing breach of temporary injunction order, and she has shown no respect to the orders of the Court.
15. Aforesaid reference to order dated 17.09.2018 has been made in order to find out the conduct and attitude of respondents towards the lawful authority of the Court.
16. That is not the end of the matter. In paragraph 6 of the reply, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have taken the following stand:-
"Although the order dated 12-08-2021 is about admission but no substantial question of law are reflected in the order."
From plain reading of order dated 12.08.2021, it is clear that three substantial questions of law were mentioned. If the respondents were of the view that substantial questions of law, which have been formulated by this Court, are not substantial questions of law, then instead of taking the law in their own hands, they should have prayed for early hearing of appeal, and should have argued the matter finally, and should have waited till the final outcome of the appeal. By having a self-developed impression in their mind that substantial questions of law, which have been formulated by this Court on 12.08.2021, are not substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC, respondents could not have taken the law in their own hands, thereby committing breach of order dated 12.08.2021. This stand Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 7 MCC-780-2023 taken by respondents also shows their hostile and adamant attitude towards the orders of the Court.
17. Another defence has been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in paragraph 5 of their reply by submitting that prior to passing of ex parte order, no notice was issued to respondents. Accordingly, counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 was requested to point out the requirement of prior notice to the respondents on the question of temporary injunction order.
18. It is fairly conceded by Shri Upendra Yadav that for passing temporary injunction order, prior notice is not required. Even otherwise, Order 39 Rule 3 CPC empowers the Court to pass an ex parte temporary injunction order.
19. Thus, it is clear that even the defence No. 5, which has been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 3, is contrary to law and merely shows the hostile and adamant attitude of respondents towards the lawful authority of the Court.
20. Another defence has been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that temporary injunction order was never communicated to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. However, it was fairly conceded by counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that vakalatanama was filed by them on 22.09.2021.
21. After having filed the vakalatanama, it has to be presumed that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were aware of the temporary injunction order dated 12.08.2021. Therefore, the stand taken by respondents that order dated 12.08.2021 was never communicated to them is false even to their own knowledge.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:028 MCC-780-2023
22. So far as another stand which has been taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 3, that this application complaining breach of temporary injunction order is misconceived because the temporary injunction order was in relation to possession and not in relation to alienation, is concerned, said aspect has already been considered by this Court in earlier part of this order.
23. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that sale deed dated 02.11.2021, Annexure D, and sale deed dated 02.11.2021, Annexure E, executed by respondent No. 3 - Vinda in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma and Rakesh Singh Sikarwar respectively, as well as sale deed dated 21.12.2022, Annexure G, and sale deed dated 21.12.2022, annexure H, executed by respondent No. 2 - Mahadevi in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar and Pradeep Mangal were executed in utter violation of temporary injunction order.
24. So far as sale deed dated 12.08.2021 executed by respondent No. 1
- Ramshri in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar is concerned, said sale deed was registered on 12.08.2021, i.e., the day when temporary injunction order was passed.
25. From the aforesaid sale deed, Annexure F, it appears that it was already presented for registration on 06.08.2021, and it was registered on 12.08.2021. From various endorsements made on this sale deed, it is clear that the thumb impression of Ramshri was obtained on 06.08.2021 at 2:48:10 pm, and therefore, it is clear that the sale deed, Annexure F, was already presented much prior to passing of temporary injunction order, although the said sale deed was registered on 12.08.2021, i.e., the day on which the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 9 MCC-780-2023 temporary injunction order was passed.
26. There is another sale deed dated 06.08.2021, which was executed by Ramshri in favour of Sonu Bansal. Said sale deed was also executed on 06.08.2021, i.e., prior to passing of temporary injunction order, but it was registered on 12.08.2021.
27. Since both the sale deeds were presented for registration much prior to the passing of temporary injunction order, and therefore, it cannot be said that Ramshri has committed breach of temporary injunction order. However, as both the sale deeds have been executed in violation of provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, and subsequent thereto, a temporary injunction order was also issued, thereby directing to maintain status-quo , thus, it is clear that both the sale deeds dated 12.08.2021, executed by Ramshri in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar and Sonu Bansal, are hit by provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, but it cannot be said that Ramshri has committed any willful breach of interim order dated 12.08.2021, therefore, this application against Ramshri is hereby rejected .
28. So far as respondent No. 2 - Mahadevi and respondent No. 3 - Vinda are concerned, they are held guilty of committing breach of order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Second Appeal No. 307/2021.
29. It is further submitted by counsel for applicant that in spite of the temporary injunction order, subsequent purchasers are interfering with the peaceful possession of applicant, and they have cut the fruit-bearing trees, etc., and accordingly, it is prayed that possession may be directed to be delivered back to applicant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:0210 MCC-780-2023
30. The Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh and Others Vs. Harbans Singh and Others, reported in (1995)6 SCC 50, has held as under:-
"4. As said before, the assignment is by means of a registered deed. The assignment had taken place after the passing of the preliminary decree in which Pritam Singh has been allotted 1/3rd share. His right to property to that extent stood established. A decree relating to immovable property worth more than hundred rupees, if being assigned, was required to be registered. That has instantly been done. It is per se property, for it relates to the immovable property involved in the suit. It clearly and squarely fell within the ambit of the restraint order. In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Once that is so, Pritam Singh and his assignees, respondents herein, cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment. Therefore, the assignees-respondents could not have been impleaded by the trial court as parties to the suit, in disobedience of its orders. The principles of lis pendens are altogether on a different footing. We do not propose to examine their involvement presently. All what is emphasised is that the assignees in the present facts and circumstances had no cause to be impleaded as parties to the suit. On that basis, there was no cause for going into the question of interpretation of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the settlement deed. The path treaded by the courts below was, in our view, out of their bounds. Unhesitatingly, we upset all the three orders of the courts below and reject the application of the assignees for impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC."
(Underline Supplied) Therefore, it is clear that if sale deed has been executed in utter violation of temporary injunction order, then said sale deed has to be treated as non-est.
31. Under these circumstances, respondents Nos. 1 to 3, as well as subsequent purchasers, are directed to restore back the possession of land in dispute to the applicant.
32. Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, Shiv Kumar Sharma, and Pradeep Mangal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 11 MCC-780-2023 have already been served. However, no one appears on their behalf. In the present case, four sale deeds were executed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 after temporary injunction order was passed. Out of these four sale deeds, two sale deeds were executed in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, one was executed in favour of Shiv Kumar Sharma, and one was executed in favour of Pradeep Mangal. As all the three subsequent purchasers have been served and they have decided not to file any reply, therefore, it has to be presumed that they do not have anything to say in this matter.
33. By holding that not only they have purchased the property in utter violation of temporary injunction order, but they have also interfered with the peaceful possession of applicant in utter violation of temporary injunction order, it is held that respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are also guilty of committing contempt of court.
34. At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Upendra Yadav that no sale deed was executed in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar after the temporary injunction order was issued, therefore, he may be exonerated.
35. Aforesaid stand taken by Shri Upendra Yadav is contrary to record, and order which has already been dictated by this Court.
36. Respondent No. 3 - Vinda has executed a registered sale deed dated 02.11.2021, Annexure E, in favour of Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, and thus, it is clear that Rakesh Singh Sikarwar had also purchased a part of disputed property by registered sale deed dated 02.11.2021. Therefore, he has ben rightly held guilty of committing breach of temporary injunction order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:0212 MCC-780-2023
37. Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC reads as under:-
"2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. -(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."
Thus, it is clear that this Court may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a period not extending three months.
38. It is submitted by counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that he is not aware of the properties of Mahadevi and Vinda, and prays for two days' time to file the details of remaining properties of Mahadevi and Vinda.
39. The details of properties shall be positively filed before this Court on or before 12.08.2025.
40. As none appears for respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7, therefore, issue bailable warrant of arrest against respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7, namely, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, and Pradeep Mangal in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to be executed by Superintendent of Police, Morena for their appearance before this Court on 14.08.2025.
41. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, and 5 to 7 are also directed to explain as Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02 13 MCC-780-2023 to why their other properties may not be attached, as provided under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 are also directed to furnish the details of their other properties for the said purposes. They shall also be heard on the question of punishment on the next date of hearing.
42. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are also directed to appear before this Court on 14.08.2025 for hearing on the question of punishment, as well as for hearing on the question as to why other properties of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 may not be attached.
43. The Collector, Morena is also directed to give the details of all the movable and immovable properties of respondent No. 2 - Mahadevi, respondent No. 3 - Vinda, respondent No. 5 - Shiv Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 6 - Rakesh Singh Sikarwar, and respondent No. 7 - Pradeep Mangal, with address latest by 12.08.2025.
44. List this case on 14.08.2025 .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AKS Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 07-08-2025 18:16:02