Gujarat HC Holds 4 Senior Citizen Women Guilty Of Contempt, Refrains From Sending Them To Civil Imprisonment In View Of Their Age

The Gujarat High Court has held four senior citizen women guilty of contempt of court, for entering into an agreement to sell a disputed property and creating third party rights despite a 2010 status quo order. 

However, noting the age of the contemnors, the court did not send them to civil imprisonment; instead it fined them with Rs 2000 each, quashed the agreement to sell the property and further imposed cost of Rs 1 Lakh on them to be paid to the registry as well as Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioners. 

In doing so the court rejected the contemnors' contention that they were not aware of the status quo order after observing that the order was noted in the mutation entries from 2015 and 2019 pertaining to the property, underscoring that the contemnors can't project themselves to be "innocent and ignorant executors of the agreement to sell". 

Referring to the mutation entries a division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Nisha M Thakore said:

"Such entries are reflected at page No.31 of the agreement to sell. Thus, the contemnors cannot project themselves as innocent and ignorant executors of the agreement to sell. It is difficult to believe that they have blindly entered into the agreement to sell without verification of the entries which form part of the agreement. They cannot project themselves to be naive to the procedure or process undertaken before and during the time of entering into the registered agreement to sell. Thus, the contention raised by the contemnors that they were not aware about the status quo order is not palatable and appears to be an afterthought". 

With respect to the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnors, the bench noted that the contemnors for the first time tendered an unconditional apology in their affidavit of February 11 this year. It said that when the contempt charge was framed against the women by a coordinate bench of the court,  the contemnors have not "whispered about any apology and have not expressed any remorse of executing the agreement to sell in defiance of the orders passed by this Court".

"On the contrary, they have vehemently contested before the Coordinated Bench and also before the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the matter was considerably adjourned on numerous occasions and the order-sheet does not reflect that they had tendered any unconditional apology. Only when this Court had taken up the matter for further hearing in view of the framing of charge, they have filed an affidavit dated 12.02.2025," the bench noted. 

Background

The high court was hearing a contempt plea, stating that the four women had violated a status quo order of the high court with respect to a property by entering into agreement to sell with certain persons for consideration of Rs.12 crore and had received Rs.4,15,00,000 and had thus created third party rights. The four women are aged 83, 81, 65 and 70 years respectively and as indicated are all senior citizens.

The applicant claimed that this amounted to willful disobedience of the high court's December 15, 2010 order passed in an application for stay moved in a 2010 appeal.

A coordinate bench of the high court had on March 4, 2024 framed charges against the contemnors after observing, "Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material available on record, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the contemnor has willfully and deliberately violated the direction of status quo. Initially, it was not the case of the opponents, that they were not represented by the learned advocate. It is only in the affidavit filed on 22.01.2024, a stand has been taken, perhaps, to improvise their case and to support the explanation, which in the prima facie opinion of this Court, appears to be an afterthought".

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court which was dismissed; however liberty was granted to the contemnors to file their response to the charge taking all points in defence. On February 7 this year when the matter was listed, all four contemnors were present and they had submitted that they were not made aware about the status quo order granted by this Court in 2010.

Before the bench, the contemnors tendered an unconditional apology arguing that they were not aware about the status quo order.

It was argued that it cannot be said that the 2010 status quo order was violated by the respondents since they were added as party respondents in the Civil Application (for bringing heirs) No.5 of 2021 and after the application was allowed, they were added as party respondents. Hence they were in a bona fide belief that no stay was operating and hence, an agreement to sell with regard to the disputed property was executed on March 8, 2022. It was argued that since the nature of the property had remained unaltered or unchanged, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by entering into agreement to sell.

Meanwhile the petitioner submitted that it cant be argued by the respondents that they were not aware about the interim order passed by the high court since the order was incorporated in the revenue entries.

The petitioner argued that Mutation Entry Nos.5698 dated 16.12.2015 and 6699 dated 04.03.2019 were recorded by the revenue authorities in Village Form Nos.6 and 7 and entry in extract of 7/12 has also been made part of the registered agreement to sell dated 08.03.2022 executed by the contemnors. Thus any party, who is desirous of selling or purchasing the property, has to always verify the revenue entries.

Findings

The bench referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and noted that in a "practically analogous issue" the apex court had held the "agreement to sell and acceptance of sale consideration despite the interim orders, as contempt of Court". 

In view of the precedents, the coordinate bench's order and the facts of the case, the bench held the four women guilty of civil contempt and also rejected their unconditional apology. 

However with respect to the punishment the court said, "On overall appreciation of the facts of the present case and in wake of the fact that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are senior citizens, we do not intend to be harsh on them by sending them to a civil prison. Hence, we impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of them, which shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period 10 days. We also declare the agreement to sell dated 08.03.2022 as non est and void ab initio and as a sequel, the same is quashed and set aside. We also direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to deposit costs of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court, as per Rule 21 of Contempt of Court(Gujarat High Court )Rules, within a period of two weeks, failing which the  Registry shall place the matter before the Bench assigned present roaster. After such amount is deposited, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the present applicants, after due verification, and the rest of the amount shall be deposited before the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority". 

Case title: DINESHBHAI DHULABHAI PARMAR & ANR. Versus DAMYANTIBEN NARAYANBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 39