Mr. Prabhu Ramakrishn And Another v. Sambath Kumar And 3 Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Prabhu Ramakrishnan
2. P.Vishal ..
Petitioners Vs.
1. Sambath Kumar
2. Selvadurai
3. Nirmal
4. K.Gopalakrishnan, Sub Registrar, Red Hills, Chennai - 52.
5. N.Gowtham
6. Lakshmi
7. Gopikrishnan
8. G.Prashanth (Suo Motu impleaded R5 to R8 as per the order made in Cont.P.No.2966 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025) ..
Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately disobeying the common orders of the Hon'ble Court dated 03.01.2025 made in O.S.A.No.62 of 2021.
For the Petitioners :
Mr.V.Sunderraman For the Respondents :
Mr.A.Palaniappan for R1 to R3 Ms.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R4 Mr.T.Vijayan for R6 Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan for R7 and R8
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 03.01.2025 made in O.S.A.Nos.62 and 63 of 2021.
2. The said Original Side Appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Division Bench in O.A.Nos.93 and 94 of 2020 in C.S.No.321 of 2019 dated 18.08.2020. The Interlocutory Application orders passed by the Single Judge in the Original jurisdiction has been appealed in the said Original Side Appeals. While rejecting the said appeals by stating the reasons, the Division Bench has passed further orders that, there shall not be any further alienation by both parties and there shall be an order of status quo till the disposal of C.S.No.321 of 2019.
3. Therefore, the order that has been passed by the Division Bench on 03.01.2025 is to refrain both parties, that is the appellants as well as the respondents in the Original Side Appeals, from making any alienations of the suit property in pendency of C.S.No.321 of 2019.
4. When that being the position, after the orders having been passed and having knowledge over the said orders, respondents 1 to 3, who are parties to the said proceedings, have started to alienate the properties, thereby, at least five such alienations have been taken place originally and thereafter, two such alienations have been taken place, which are subsequent alienations by the purchasers from the original vendors, that is respondents 1 to 3.
5. When this was brought to our notice, we have passed a series of interim orders by impleading the other respondents also, who are the subsequent purchasers, who also in turn knowingly or unknowingly violated the orders of this Court.
6. At one point of time, out of the seven such sales taken place, only four documents have been canceled and the remaining
three were not canceled, therefore, time was taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnors that, within the shortest possible time, the remaining documents also would be canceled, resultantly, by our last order dated 20.01.2026, we granted time till 29.01.2026, that is today, enabling the contemnors to cancel all the remaining documents also by way of cancellation deed to be registered in this regard.
7. Pursuant to the said directions and the time that was allowed to them, today, when the case is taken up for further hearing, it is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the contemnors, that is respondents 1 to 3, that, the remaining three documents also have been canceled by cancellation of sale deed documents dated 08.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 respectively, thereby, the remaining three documents, out of the seven documents, also are canceled and thus, the entire transactions, that have taken place even after the orders having been passed by the Division Bench as referred to above, are all now canceled and the original position on the date of passing the orders by the earlier Division Bench has been restored.
8. These transactions made by the respondents/contemnors, that is the original contemnors/respondent 1 to 3, is a clear violation of the orders of this Court, as with the knowledge of the orders of this Court, where they have been restricted from making any further alienation, since they have sold the property by making alienations, certainly, it would amount to be contemptible of the orders passed by this Court.
9. Though the punishment of fine or imprisonment could be imposed against the respondents, especially respondents 1 to 3, in view of the fervent appeal having been made before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the undertaking orally given by respondents 1 to 3 before this Court, that hereafter they will not involve in any such activities amounting to violation of the orders of this Court, we are refraining from inflicting any such punishment of imprisonment or imposing any fine, but, at the same time, in order to realize the committed contempt by the respondents 1 to 3, we deem it appropriate to impose the punishment of warning against the said respondents 1 to 3 and accordingly, such punishment of warning is imposed against them.
10. Since the alienations made even after the orders passed by the Court, now, having been rectified by canceling all the seven sale deeds and the damage done since is rectified and the punishment of warning also having been imposed against them, we further deem it appropriate to close the present contempt petition with the further direction that the orders passed by the Division Bench dated 03.01.2025 shall be scrupulously followed and be strictly complied with by the parties to the said proceedings without any deviations. Despite these directions, if any further deviations are noticed, as involved in by any of the parties to the proceedings, that would be viewed very seriously by this Court.
11. With these, the present contempt petition stands closed. (R.S.K., J.) (P.D.B., J.) 29.01.2026 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No (drm)
To:
1. The Sub Registrar, Red Hills, Chennai - 52.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND P. DHANABAL, J.
(drm) 29.01.2026