Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) This being so, the complainant filed O.S.No.32/2008 seeking rectification of the release deed, which was entered into by the complainant and the accused-contemnor. However, the said suit came to be dismissed.
(iv) the complainant filed FDP.No.5/2018 for execution of the compromise decree dated 05/12/1997 entered into between the parties in O.S.No.56/1996.
(v) The accused-contemnor who was respondent No.3 in FDP filed objections to the said FDP proceedings.

- 13 -

O.S.No.56/1996, item Nos.3 and 4 of Annexure - C, no survey number is mentioned and the property in which the accused-contemnor has put up construction is the property of the accused-contemnor bearing Sy.No.8/5 measuring 3 cents and not Sy.No.8/12 as contended by the complainant.

(ii) in the Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.5/2018 the Commissioner has surveyed and submitted his report and accordingly, final decree proceedings were closed and the accused-contemnor has withdrawn the writ petition No.26546/2019, wherein the petitioner challenged the appointment of Court Commissioner in FDP.No.5/2018 and accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed as having become infructuous and would state that there is no wilful disobedience by the accused-contemnor.

- 18 -

wherein both the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is stated in his evidence in Annexure-M series photos and the properties mentioned in FDP No.5/2018 are one and the same and the construction carried out in the said property was the subject matter of properties in FDP No.5/2018 and W.P.No.26546/2019. The complainant further deposed that the accused- contemnor though sought for permission to put up construction in the property and without there being any permission accorded by the gram panchayat, the illegal construction has been carried out by the accused- contemnor. The complainant denied in his cross- examination that the building constructed by the accused-contemnor does not pertains to the property mentioned in FDP.No.5/2018 or W.P.No.26546/2019. The complainant categorically stated that the construction put up is in the property which was the subject matter in the said writ petition as well as the FDP and denied that the accused-contemnor has put up

13. The accused-contemnor, in his evidence, has deposed that he has not put up any construction either in Sy.No.8/4 or 8/12, but has put up construction in Sy.No.8/5 which is not the subject matter in FDP

- 20 -

No.5/2018 or W.P.No.26546/2019 and the construction put up is in 4 cents out of 50 cents in Sy.No.8/5 which has fallen to his share after the death of his father and that in the year 1997, he has made construction in the said 4 cents after obtaining necessary permission from gram panchayat. In his cross-examination, the accused-contemnor has admitted that FDP.No.5/2018 is in respect of the properties mentioned in the terms of compromise petition entered into in O.S.No.56/1996 and the report submitted by the Commissioner in FDP.No.5/2018 is in respect of all the properties mentioned in the compromise petition.