The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has sentenced an appellant to one month of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine for “willful disobedience” of an interim order that restrained him from creating third-party rights or mortgaging suit properties.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that the act of executing a mortgage deed and a sale deed despite the court’s explicit restriction was a conscious and deliberate violation of the rule of law.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings arose from A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, an appeal filed against a partition decree in O.S. No. 139 of 2009. On July 16, 2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court passed an interim order in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 allowing the return of original documents (Exs. B2 to B7) to the respondent No. 2 (Nagatham Mukunda Reddy), subject to specific conditions.
The conditions explicitly stipulated that the petitioner:
- Shall not create any third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or alter the same basing upon the said documents.
- Shall not pledge or mortgage the original documents in any manner for any purpose.
Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 filed I.A. No. 2 of 2021 seeking modification of these conditions to permit him to pledge the documents for financial needs. This application was dismissed by the Court on August 4, 2022.
The Act of Disobedience
Despite the dismissal of the modification application, the respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023) on August 7, 2023, with the Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited. Further, on December 10, 2024, he executed a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024) in favor of third parties for item No. 1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
The contempt petitioners (plaintiffs in the original suit) filed the present petition alleging that these transactions constituted a flagrant violation of the court’s interim order.
Arguments of the Parties
The respondent No. 2 admitted to executing the deeds but argued that the transactions were “nominal” and necessitated by “personal and financial compelling situations.” His counsel contended that there was no “willful or intentional disobedience” and that the purchasers had executed a kararnama (agreement) to reconvey the property by June 2026 upon repayment of the loan. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda and C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj.
Conversely, the contempt petitioners argued that the kararnama was an afterthought created to defend the contempt case. They maintained that the violation was intentional, especially since the court had already rejected a specific plea to relax the conditions for financial reasons.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court rejected the respondent’s defense, noting that the execution of the deeds was a “conscious act.” The Bench observed:
“Willful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily either to disobey or to disregard the law. Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s observation in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., the Bench emphasized its disapproval of the “slap-say sorry-and forget” school of thought. The Court noted that an apology must be a product of “real contrition” and not a “calculated strategy to avoid punishment.”
On the respondent’s plea regarding the “nominal” nature of the sale, the Court remarked that the willingness to purge the contempt appeared to be a tactic to avoid punishment. The Bench held:
“To serve the ends of justice as also to upholding the rule of law and for restoring the public confidence in the orders passed by this Court… respondent No. 2 must be visited with punishment.”
The Decision
The Court found the charges of contempt proved beyond doubt and rejected the unconditional apology as not being bona fide.
The Court ordered:
- Sentence: Respondent No. 2 is punished with simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
- Detention: He is to be detained in a civil prison for the duration of the sentence.
- Costs: A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the respondent, to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee.
- Subsistence Allowance: The contempt petitioners were directed to deposit a subsistence allowance of Rs. 500 per day for the period of the respondent’s detention.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nagatham Suneetha & another v. Nagatham Muni Rajamma (died) & 3 others
- Case Number: Contempt Case No. 1636 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
