Dismissed

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy v. Smt. Yerramma

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.CCC/7/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal contempt petition alleging abuse of court process through multiple filings, the Karnataka High Court accepted the accused's unconditional apology affidavit, considering her advanced age and fair concession by the complainants, and dropped the proceedings without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal contempt proceedings against the accused were dropped.

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy Vs Smt. Yerramma — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. THIMMAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O LATE MUTHAPPA,

¶12

SRI. T. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O THIMMAPPA REDDY,

¶13

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BANNERGHATT ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-506 076. …COMPLAINANTS

¶15

(BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. YERRAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O NARAYANA REDDY, RESIDING AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, B.G.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶22

THIS CRL.CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15(1)(b) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED BY SECURING HER PRESENCE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Contempt Petition is filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') by the complainants seeking to initiate action against the accused/contemnor for committing a Contempt of Court, which is criminal in nature, by making spurious claims over the property not belonging to her, making repetitive claims in different suits in respect of same subject matter and also filing multiple suits in different Courts, initiating multiple proceedings before various authorities in respect of the same subject matter, which has been attained finality before this Court. Hence, according to the complainants, the accused is abusing the process of Court, which amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(C) of the Act.

¶26

After service of notice by this Court, the accused/contemnor appeared and filed her detailed statement of objections.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶29

After considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶30

case, this Court heard both sides before framing charges and after meticulous reading of the material placed by the complainants, this Court framed the charges against the accused/contemnor, vide order dated 12.07.2016, which reads as thus:

¶31

"CHARGE

¶32

We, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Budihal R.B., hereby charge you -

¶33

Smt. Yerramma, Aged about 72 years, W/o.Narayana Reddy, Residing at Hulimavu village, B.G.S.Public School Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.

¶34

as follows:

¶35

That you the accused despite civil litigations in O.S.No.495/1982, O.S.No.7098/1991, MFA No.1782/1994 and RFA No.1179/2004 and despite the specific decree passed in RFA No.1179/2004, have been indulging in filing various multiple proceedings such as R.A.No.39/1982-83, R.A.No.15/1986-87, R.A.No.6/1990-91, R.P.No.220/2001 in MFA No.1782/94, KAT Appeal No.263/2012 before quasi judicial forums (Revenue Courts) in respect of Survey Nos.81/4A and 81/4B of Hulimavu, Bengaluru South Taluk, against the complainants. Your said actions are calculated to abuse the process of the Courts and thereby you interfered and obstructed the administration of justice, which actions amount to Criminal Contempt

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶38

under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶39

It is ordered that you shall be tried before this court for the above said offence.

¶40

We hereby certify that the above said charge was read over and explained to the accused in the language (Kannada) known to her and thereafter her plea is recorded separately.

¶41

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2016."

¶42

The charge read over to the accused/contemnor by this Court, however, she denied the same. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused/contemnor, the complainants examined complainant No.2 as PW.1 so also got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. However, after closure of the complainants' side, the incriminating portion of the evidence of the complainants read over to the accused as contemplated under provision of 313 of Cr.P.C. and the same has denied by the accused. However, the accused herself examined as RW.1 so also got marked 36 documents as Exs.R1 to R36.

¶43

In this scenario, the matter is listed today for final

¶44

arguments on the merits of the case. At this juncture, learned counsel for the accused prays indulgence of this Court to accept

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶46

the unconditional apology of the accused by way of her affidavit and to drop the contempt proceedings.

¶47

On a query to the learned counsel for the complainants, learned Senior counsel appearing for them would fairly submit that by considering the age of the accused, the affidavit may be accepted and the proceedings may be closed instead of deciding the case on merits.

¶48

We have carefully examined the evidence and other

¶49

material placed before us so also the contention advanced by both the parties to the lis .

¶50

The Affidavit filed by the accused reads thus:

¶51

"AFFIDAVIT TENDERING APOLOGY BY THE ACCUSED

¶52

I, Yerramma, w/o Late Narayana Reddy, aged about 92 years, r/a Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk- 566076, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as hereunder:

¶53

1. I am before this Hon'ble Court in the evening of my age and I have all respects for this Hon'ble Court and also the Courts where I have initiated the proceedings to establish my right, title, interest together with possession of my property. I am seeking an unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court in the Contempt Petition filed by Thimmappa Reddy, since deceased by his legal representative Shri. T. Srinivasa Reddy. I respectfully submit that any order/s passed by

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶56

this Hon'ble Court, I will abide by the same and I will not commit any violation or disobedience of the said Order/s. In order to establish as to what are the matters that I have filed, I am placing before this Hon'ble Court the details in this Affidavit. I may be pardoned if I have committed any mistake in any of the proceedings initiated by me to protect my property rights against any Judgment or Order that are passed against me. I humbly pray that I will abide by the final decision pertaining to my right over the property that may be passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶57

2. I respectfully bow down before this Hon'ble Court and submit that as on the date of filing of the above Complaint in the year 2015, my age is mentioned as 72 years. I was suffering from severe head ache and also I was undergoing medication and still I am under treatment. The complainant has filed the above Complaint alleging the following allegations against me:

¶58

(a). Making spurious claim to the properties which do not belong to the respondent/accused.

¶59

(b). Making repetitive claims in different suits with respect to same subject matter.

¶60

(c). Filing of multiple suits before Court in respect of the subject matter which has already attained finality before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court.

¶61

(d). Suppression of material facts, documents and orders of Courts previously made on the same subject matter.

¶62

3. I submit that I am not making spurious claim. The property was purchased in the name of my minor son Muthappa. My minor son died at the age of two years and after his death, I succeeded to the property.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶65

4. I did not make any repetitive claim in different suits. I can establish the relief claimed in different suits are different but not repetitive.

¶66

5. I never suppressed any material facts. The documents and the order/s of the courts previously made are not on the same subject matter.

¶67

6. Thus, I say that the above statements made by be are borne on records.

¶68

7. I respectfully submit that my the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 81,82 and 83 of Hulimavu Village are situated adjacent to each other.

¶69

8. I submit that during the year 1929, Sy. No. 81 totally measuring 09 acres 32 guntas was subdivided into Sy. No. 81/1 measuring 01 acre 20 guntas, Sy. No. 81/2 measuring 01 acre 36 guntas, Sy. No. 81/3 measuring 02 acres 36 guntas and Sy. No. 81/4 measuring 03 acres 20 guntas respectively.

¶70

9. Thereafter, Sy. No. 81/4 was further sub-divided into Sy. No. 81/4A measuring 01 acre 13 guntas, Sy. No. 81/4B measuring 01 acre 15 guntas and Sy. No. 81/4C measuring 32 guntas respectively including Kharab.

¶71

10. I submit that Thogur Ramaiah @ Ramaiah s/o Thogur Nagappa was the owner of the entire lands in Sy. No. NOTAR/2 and Sy. No. 81/4 (new Sy. No. 81/4A, 81/4B & 81/4C). By exercising his right in respect of the said Sy. No. 81/4 totally measuring 03 acres 06 guntas excluding 14 guntas kharab, the said Thogur Ramaiah under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.05.1943 sold the land in Sy. No. 81 (new Sy. No. 81/4) mentioning the extent about 2 ½ acres excluding kharab situated within the boundaries in favour of one Venkatamma. On the date of execution of the

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶74

said Sale Deed there was a mistake in mentioning the boundaries.

¶75

11. I submit that on Eastern side of Sy. No. 83/4, there was a Government Govi Bande and on the Northern side New Phoded Sy. No. 83/3, 83/3, 83/5 & 83/6.

¶76

12. I submit that under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.1948, the said Venkatamma in turn sold the land to Thogur Ramalah and the same boundaries continued. Thereafter, the boundary was wrongly shown as Muniyamma's land instead of showing land in Sy. No. 83 (belongs to Venkatamma).

¶77

13. I submit that on 03.11.1952, the said Thogur Ramalah sold the very same land in favour of one H. Muniyappa Reddy once again by giving wrong boundaries.

¶78

14. I submit that on the eastern side of land bearing Sy. No. 81 (Sy. No. 81/4, further phodi Sy. Nos. 81/4A, 81/4B and Incorrectly was 81/4C) mentioned Lakshmamma's land instead of showing Government Govibande. There was error in describing the boundary.

¶79

15. I respectfully submit in clarity before this Hon'ble Court the complainant in this Complaint for the first time mentioned that he purchased the property 05.11.1964. The dispute not started from the year 1964, but it started when the Complainant approached the Revenue Authorities and got orders from Revenue Authorities for change of the locations of the property. The property described in the schedule to Sale Deed dated 05.11.1964 is as hereunder:

¶80

"Sy. No. 81/2 situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring an extent of 485 feet with thari land of 10 guntas and bounded on:

¶81

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶82

East by : Munishamappa's land West by : Rajakaluve North by : Munishamappa's land South by : Ramalah's land. Towards No.12, Hulimavu Village, Henhina mane. East by : Property of Jayamma, Muniyamma and Ramaiah's house West by : Muniyamma's house, North by : Holageri, South by : Raja Beedhi.

¶83

The said house was given to Lakshmamma and Thimmakka."

¶84

16. The Revenue Authorities identified by property in my property Sy. No. 81/4A, 81/4B and 81/4C. Therefore, I had no other option except to approach the Civil Court on the following litigations:

¶85

(a). O.S. No. 495/1982 filed was for the relief of declaration and injunction of some portion of land. I withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit;

¶86

(b). I filed O.S. No. 7098/1991 for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction in respect of Sy. Nos. 81/4A, 81/4B and 81/4C totally measuring 03 acres 20 guntas;

¶87

(c). On 08.09.1994, the Civil Court was pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction and to protect my property;

¶88

(d). The complainants filed M.F.A.No.1782/1994 and in the said M.F.A proceedings, order was granted. However, there was status quo

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶90

10 -

¶91

order granted and thereafter it was modified without notice giving permission to remove barbed wire fencing and to replace with brick compound wall.

¶92

(e). Review Petition 220/2021 before this Hon'ble Court was filed by me. Order was passed to appoint a Receiver and to protect the property.

¶93

(f). The O.S. No. 7098/1991 came to be dismissed on 01.09.2004, which the relief claimed was for judgment and decree against the defendants for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of land bearing Old Sy. No. 81, New Sy. Nos. 81/4A, 81/4B & 81/4C measuring in total 03 acres 20 guntas situated at Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and bounded on East by: Government Govibande, West by: Land of Abbaiah, North by: Sy. No. 83 and Lakshmamma's land property and South by: Gomala, for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/their agents, servants or anybody else claiming through or acting under them from entering upon and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs of the suit and grant such other relief/s.

¶94

(g). I preferred R.F.A. No. 1179/2004. In the sald R.F.A, status quo order was granted on 20.11.2004 at the time of admission. The order of status quo reads as hereunder:

¶95

"The interim order of injunction is granted in terms of the order of this Court dated 01.03.1995 in M.F.A No. 1782/1994, wherein an injunction is granted only to an extent of 2 acres.

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶98

LCRs to be secured telephonically by 06.12.2004.

¶99

Paper-book to be filed finally by the end of January 2005, failing which, the Appeal shall stands dismissed without further reference to the bench".

¶100

(h). The R.F.A 1179/2004 was disposed of. Operative portion of the Order reads as hereunder:

¶101

"Appeal is partly allowed. Plaintiffs are declared as owners of the suit schedule property shown in Ex.P8 i.e., southern portion of Sy. No. 81 situated at Hulimavu Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Talu, bounded on East by : Lakshmamma's land, West by: Abbaiah's land, North by : Muniyamma's land and South by : Gomal land measuring about 2 acres."

¶102

(i). After the R.F.A No. 1179/2004 was decided by this Hon'ble Court. I did approach the Tahshildar to enter my name in the Record of Rights and Mutation Register. My name was entered on the representation given by me with the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court. The said revenue entries was challenged by the Complainant in Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner favoured the complainant as against which, I preferred Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner which came to be dismissed. I could not approach the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and persuade the matter. As on this day, the revenue documents have not been continued in my name on the basis of the registered document of sale deed and judgment in R.F.A. No. 1179/2004.

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶105

(j). My right in the property is 01 acre 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 81/4B for which I filed O.S. No.3609/2015. The said suit came to be dismissed by Judgment of the Trial Court on 16.01.2024. There was an injunction order granted in the said suit. The order of injunction was confirmed in M.F.A and the property is protected.

¶106

17. I submit that except the aforesaid proceedings, I have not litigated upon the property nor did I file any Application nor harassed the complainant or sought any relief in order to harass the complainant or his son but, for protection of my property, I approached the Court.

¶107

18. I have respected the Court orders in all the aforesaid proceedings. I did not disobey any order/s of the Courts and I have always respected any orders that are passed by the Court/s. Wherever I had a right to question the legality or otherwise of the order being aggrieved which is my statutory right, I have approached the Court/s as referred to above.

¶108

19. I am aged today 92 years and I am suffering from age related ailments. I have been instructed by my family members to file R.F.A and therefore, R.F.A is filed before this Hon'ble Court and the same is registered as F.R. No. 553/2024. Whatever decision that this Hon'ble Court renders in the said Appeal, I would abide by its decision.

¶109

20. I respectfully submit that the property belonged to me and it is my property and I have been throughout been in possession of the property and protected the property from my dispossession and the orders that are passed by this Hon'ble Court, I have obeyed and I have not disobeyed any order nor filed any frivolous and vexatious Applications. I will not file any frivolous, vexatious Applications except seeking legal and

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶112

statutory remedies that are available to be pertaining to the property in question.

¶113

21. I humbly pray this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to consider the foresaid statements made by me and to protect the legal rights which I have exercised pertaining to the property in question. I also pray that I have great respect to the judicial system which always helped by hearing me in all the cases and also accepted the evidence and documents produced. Except agitating my rights in respect of the property, I have not committed any high handed acts by concocting or fabricating the documents or suppressed any documents nor filed any successive suits or Applications except the statements made aforesaid.

¶114

22. I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take into ARY consideration that the property in question is the only property available to me over which I have established my property rights by producing the relevant documents before the Courts.

¶115

23. I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take this affidavit on record and pardon me for not submitting my objections to the complaint filed by the complainant. I could not participate in the complaint proceedings due to my old age and ill-health as stated above nor I was guided properly. Therefore, I could not file this Apology Affidavit at earlier point of time Immediately after charges are framed. The delay may be pardoned. Apart from the same, the earlier application seeking to pardon me was filed in a hurried manner. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to consider this Apology Affidavit and pardon me if I have committed any act/deed that has affected the judicial system and if I have disobeyed any order of the Court/s where my suits/appeals that are filed is on successive litigations filed. I request this Hon'ble Court with folded bands once again to pardon me. Except the

¶116

14 -

¶117

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶118

R.F.A (FR 553/2024) filed before this Hon'ble Court, no other proceedings is pending either before this Hon'ble Court or before any other Court.

¶119

I swear that this is my name and signature. I have not suppressed any real facts before this Hon'ble Court. What is stated above are all true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief."

¶120

On careful perusal of the contents of the above affidavit, admittedly, the accused is aged about 92 years and she claimed that she could not participate in the contempt proceedings due to her old age and ill-health nor she was guided properly. Therefore, she could not file the Apology Affidavit at earlier point of time immediately after charges are framed. Accordingly, she prays to condone the delay in filing the affidavit and prays to pardon her.

¶121

Keeping in view the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments while dealing with the contempt jurisdiction, the Court has power of contempt and that lethal power too accompanies with greater responsibility. Contempt is a weapon like "Brahmastra" to be used sparingly to remain effective. In the case on hand, though the act of the

¶122

15 -

¶123

NC: 2024:KHC:9595-DB CRL.CCC No. 7 of 2015

¶124

accused in filing repeated spurious cases against the complainants attracts Section 2(C) of the Act, nevertheless considering the age of the accused that she being in her late evening of her life and also the complainants fairly conceded to accept the unconditional apology affidavit and to drop the proceedings, we are of the view that instead of delving into the merits of the case, the contempt proceedings is liable to be closed.

¶125

According, we proceed to pass the following:

¶126

ORDER

¶127

i) The criminal contempt proceedings is hereby dropped .

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy v. Smt. Yerramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy v. Smt. Yerramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Devendrappa S G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited Vs 3M India Limited

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy Vs Dr Bagadi Gautham

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Raghunatha Reddy H B